A climate scientist and climate change skeptic fires back at The Guardian’s global warming zealotry.
The Cornwall Alliance email newsletter contained a great response to a piece in The Guardian: “Has The Guardian “Rolling Stoned” Christy & Spencer?”
That tireless ecological zealot over at The Guardian, Dana Nuccitelli, took the opportunity of our 25th anniversary of satellite-based global temperature monitoring to rip us a new one.
Comparing John Christy and me to “scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer”, Dana once again demonstrates his dedication to the highest standards of journalism.
Well done, Grauniad.
I prefer to compare us to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who rejected the scientific consensus that peptic ulcers were due to too much stress or spicy food. While they eventually received the Nobel Prize after years of ridicule and scorn from the medical research community, we have no illusions that we will ever be credited for our long-standing position that global warming fears have been overblown. I’m sure the UN’s IPCC will find a way to take credit for that, and get another Peace Prize for it.
(I wonder if Marshall and Warren were being paid off by the spicy food lobby?)
We live in an age when countless cultural arguments are based on assumptions that simply aren’t true. But, boy, do the promoters of certain ideas like to yell and shout and call you ignorant and bigoted (and all sorts of other names) if you don’t go along with their policy prescriptions based on those false assumptions!
When you dig down to first-principles, you find you are living in a very different world… a world where the nauseatingly repeated claim that “97% of all climate scientists agree” that global warming is real, and man is causing it… is seen to be a total fabrication when you uncover where the number originated.
Dr. Roy Spencer pulls out the big guns in reply to another broadside from a global warming hysteric, and he’s not shy about wearing labels when they’re accurate:
About the only thing [Guardian reporter] Dana [Nuccitelli] got reasonably correct is his article’s tag line, “John Christy and Roy Spencer are pro-fossil fuel and anti-scientific consensus.”
We are pro-fossil fuel because there are no large scale replacements available, wind and solar are too expensive, and you can’t just cut fossil fuel use without causing immense human suffering. Yes, I’ve talked to some of the top economists about it. And indeed we are ‘anti-scientific consensus’ because the consensus (which mostly just follows the average of the IPCC climate models) has been demonstrated to be wrong.
Don’t be led astray by Al Gore and all of the other “Chicken Littles” who want you to hand over your money and your freedom based on so-called Climate Change. Yep, the weather she’s a changin’… just like she’s always done.