Imagine if you will: Every time scientists post (on the internet) research data showing that “genes are composed of DNA and are responsible for heritable changes,” an opposing evil faction (SPECTRE) immediately (on the web) denounces that statement as “misinformation” (i.e., “everyone knows that inheritance is explained solely by epigenetic effects that have nothing to do with alterations in DNA sequence”). In addition, Science magazine, as well as all journals under the Nature Publishing Group umbrella (a vast organization comprising ~148 journals), have declared: “Any manuscript submitted to us, claiming that ‘genes are composed of DNA and are responsible for heritable changes, etc.’ will not be considered for publication and will be rejected without further review.”
Imagine if you will: Every time scientists post (on the web) a research paper saying that “Darwinian evolution has been occurring on this planet, starting more than 4 billion years ago, ultimately resulting today in all species,” several creationist internet sites instantly denounce those data as “misinformation” (i.e., “everyone knows that Earth was created on 4 Oct 4004 B.C. — meaning that we are now in the 6,026th year of its existence; man and dinosaur were both created on that same day.”). In addition, Science magazine, as well as all journals under the Nature Publishing Group umbrella, have stated: “Any manuscript submitted to us, claiming that ‘Darwinian evolution has occurred on Earth, starting more than 4 billion years ago, ultimately resulting today in all species on Earth today, etc.’ will not be considered for publication and will be rejected without further review.”
As silly as these last two imaginary paragraphs sound — this is exactly what has happened in the field of climatology during the last three or four decades. This censuring and calling scientific facts “misinformation” occurs not only on the internet and most scientific journals — but also in many newspapers and magazines, and in the mandatory lesson plans in many schools from pre-K through college — in many U.S. states. In other words, the scientific side of the debate is completely censured, while the alarmists (who have no scientific facts but depend only on computer-modeling) are allowed to spread hype and hysteria.
Those on the scientific side of the debate are called “deniers” or “skeptics”; alarmists call themselves “believers” or “realists” who are convinced that human activity is the cause of global warming and that rising atmospheric CO2 is the worst culprit. Hence, the hype about “carbon footprints” and the need to “decarbonize.” [Atmospheric CO2 (a colorless odorless gas) has risen from ~180 parts-per-million (ppm) in 1850 (since the end of the Little Ice Age) to ~410 ppm today — which has improved plant growth. However, keep in mind that each time you exhale, your breath contains 40,000 to 50,000 ppm of CO2.]
In contrast, Russia and China have not accepted this silliness that “the world is experiencing a climate crisis.” In October 2003, Vladimir Putin organized a World Global Warming Conference in Moscow, because he wanted to hear from both sides of the debate; after hearing the whole story, Putin concluded “there is no global warming; this is a deliberate fraud to restrain industrial development of several countries including Russia.” Xi Jinping, president of the People’s Republic of China since 2013, agrees with Putin and has approved construction of several hundred additional coal-burning factories in his country during the next decade.
How does all this above — involve our “Gene-Environment Interactions Training Program” (GEITP) email blogs? Well, since 2008, this email blog has included the topic of fraud and corruption in science. Many times, we’ve discussed the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Theory. This has never been scientifically proven (cf. the numerous publications by Professor Ed Calabrese), yet the LNT Theory was accepted as scientific fact in the 1950s. LNT Theory was established as “government policy” and continues to be used today in thousands of risk-assessment experiments in laboratory animals — trying to estimate potentially carcinogenic and toxic environmental agents in extrapolation to humans. This has led to billions of dollars of wasted taxpayer money spent without good reason. LNT is regarded by GEITP as the “second-most expensive fraud” in Western World countries.
GEITP ranks “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) Theory as the “#1 most expensive fraud” in Western World countries, because since the 1980s it has developed into a multi-trillion-dollar industry. [In the 1970s, the same groups were hysterical about “global cooling.”] In large part, cancellation of American energy-independence (in January 2021) to make America once again energy-dependent on fossil fuels (and focused on the development of solar and wind energy — which together cannot supply even 10% of America’s energy needs), happened because leaders of this country believe in human- and CO2-caused global warming — which sadly was a big factor leading to the invasion of Ukraine.
Alongside a career in pharmacology, toxicology, biophysics and biochemistry of enzyme induction, gene nomenclature, cancer, developmental biology, clinical human genetics, and evolutionary genomics — all fields that are seriously factual and quantitative — Yours Truly developed a strong interest in the field of climatology during the past 20 years. It quickly became obvious that every fact in climatology is immediately fervently challenged and put down by hysterical alarmists, without any scientific rationale; politics are unfortunately involved, and “politics” are opinions that have nothing to do with scientific factual data. ☹
Below is the URL for a 40-minute video lecture by David Siegel, in which he covers an entire semester of Climatology. His lecture is divided into six segments [ (a) What is climate? (b) The story of CO2. (c) Orbital mechanics and temperature. (d) Emission equilibrium, the greenhouse effect. (e) Thermal equilibirum, how Earth’s climate really works, and (f) Predictions for the future.] If you left-click on “CC”, you can turn on “closed captions” — which is highly recommended because Siegel speaks so quickly and covers so much material in a succinct amount of time. It is recommended that you “take one segment at a time,” then review it repeatedly taking notes, until everything is understood. Then proceed to the next segment. And so on.
“Climate” is measured in 30-year segments, three per century; meteorological conditions that occur in less than 30 years are called “adverse weather events.” Causes of climate change include: solar activity (frequency and strength of sunspots); changes in “radiative forcing” (balance between solar radiation energy absorbed by Earth and energy radiated back into space); heat distribution between oceanic and atmospheric systems; cosmic ray flux; eccentricity, axial tilt and precession of Earth’s orbit; influence by magnetic effects of other planets (especially Jupiter); and catastrophic events such as underwater and above-water volcano eruptions, and substantial-sized meteorites.
The Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), known by sailors as “the doldrums” or “the calms” because of its monotonous windless weather, is the area where the northeast and southeast trade winds converge; it encircles Earth near the thermal equator — although its specific position varies seasonally.
As you can learn from Siegel’s lecture, a recent advancement in climatology is a better understanding as to how the ITCZ affects and interacts with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Arctic Oscillation/Northern Annular Mode (AO/NAM), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), and Southern Annular Mode (SAM) weather oscillations/cycles. These oscillations occur over decades or centuries involving each ocean — impacting the (incoming) sun’s heat vs (outgoing) albedo (reflectivity) combined with radiative trapping by the greenhouse gases. But Siegel goes further back, into the distant past, … describing plate tectonics and continent/ocean formation, which has set up this past century’s climate changes.
He concludes there is no relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. No scientist has found any evidence that humans are causing global climate to change (either warmer or cooler). There is no climate emergency. To scare children with the hysteria that “the end of life as we know it, is near” (eco-anxiety) — is a form of child abuse.
David Siegel received his degree in mathematics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. In 1985, he earned a master’s degree in digital typography from Stanford University. His first job was with Pixar, and then he became an entrepreneur in web site design. He became interested in the field of climate and atmospheric science in the late 1980s and over the past 30+ years has found his niche there. IMHO, this Youtube video is one of the clearest layman’s (nonpolitical) descriptions as to how complicated “atmospheric science” really is. 😊
And then, just last week, we received another NIEHS email [see below], describing new funding opportunities for “climate change and health research.” Sadly, these federal funds given to NIH — represent just a tiny portion of the trillions of dollars being invested each year in the climate change scam. Where or when will all this wasted taxpayer money stop? We have no idea. ☹
From: Emails for Active PIs with grants at NIEHS
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 7:57 AM
Subject: NIH Climate Change and Health Initiative – New Funding Opportunities
New Funding Opportunities for Climate Change and Health Research
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has just released funding notices and opportunities for research into how climate change affects human health, and to reduce disparities in climate change-related health outcomes. NIH encourages applicants to focus on NIH-priority populations and propose transdisciplinary research that falls broadly into the Core Elements and Supporting Areas of Science outlined in the Climate Change and Health Initiative Strategic Framework.
There are four new solicitations:
RFA-ES-22-003: Research Coordinating Center for the Climate Change and Health Community of Practice (U24 – Clinical Trial Not Allowed) etc., etc.
COMMENT: Dan: Nicely stated. I think many scientists know better (than to say that “human industrial emissions (and/or CO2) is causing global warming”), but they are afraid to rock the boat. My experience has shown me that bias is strong — particularly when it has scientists in its grips because as much as they proclaim that truth lies in data — their egos are stronger at upholding their belief/opinion/position. The bigger their reputation, the harder it is for them to reverse their position. Some have the rare quality to do so, but most do not.
In my opinion, you have mastered the science of climatology; it is a complex topic, but it has been made to “look simple,” and that is a big part of the problem. All the billions of dollars of grant money has made it possible for hundreds of academic professors to continuously receive healthy salaries to look at every possible correlation; this has amassed a mountain of publications. All this mountain of (useless) publications, however, was built completely on modeling (and retrospective studies, or studies using data collected for a different reason, or past data that have been faked or “readjusted” to support their hypothesis, etc. Their data are tortured by statistics and twisted with adjustments.
People (outside the field of climatology or meteorology) reading these “soft science” papers then step back and say, “Wow, look at all these data! They must be real. Anyone who says otherwise must be crazy.” They fail to understand what it takes to reduce uncertainty. The best way is to conduct well-designed, well-controlled, blinded, prospective studies. Of course, to do such studies — to determine if man-made CO2 causes warming — would be impossible. Such a study would be gigantic, too costly, and would take too long. But the fact remains, that there are no prospective data to support the mountain that has been constructed. That is fundamentally problematic. Modeling in particular is the last type of investigative method that should be made to determine causality. It is at best useful for generating (not proving) hypotheses.
Over the decades that this modeling has been going on — all the predictions (hundreds of predictions) based upon modeling have failed to pan out. Not successful even once! That fact alone should cause alarm bells to go off, and brakes to be slammed on. All the model failures have, in essence, negated the hypothesis. So, mountains of complex artifacts have been built, and almost all the builders’ egos are too large to admit their failure!
The situation is simple for me: One, there is no prospective study to suggest causality at a reasonable level of uncertainty-reduction. Two, the failure of modeling to predict valid outcomes has reduced the hypothesis “that man-made CO2 causes warming” — to the status of highly unlikely.
The other tragedy — is their failure to see that: other forms of energy (except for the nuclear-energy “villain”) — cannot come close to meeting the required demand (as you pointed out). Green-energy people are in total denial, and they have the nerve to call real climate scientists “deniers!” Electric vehicles, … Really?? The energy cost (in mining the metals, to manufacturing the EVs. to furnishing the electric stations along all highways, to the maintenance and tire pollution of the EVs on the road, to the need for new storage batteries, to depositing the old EVs and storage batteries in dump sites) will end up consuming far, far more fossil fuel than if burnt directly in fossil-fuel-powered vehicles.
Knowledgeable scientists need to stand back on a hill and look at the entire valley below them, instead of focusing on one tree — to the point that they cannot even see the forest!