The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Along with my articles on Climate Change and Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing I have Chirped about Climate Change. This webpage is a compilation of my Chirps on Climate Change.

11/10/18 Real Climate Science

As many of you are aware, I am lukewarm (sic) and skeptical of Man-Made Climate change, as my “Climate Change” Science Article explains. One of the reasons for my skepticism is the use of statistics in Climate Change. One other such skeptic is Tony Heller. He is not a climate scientist. (Neither is Al Gore or Bill Nye, the Science Guy.) Heller is a Computer Scientist and Geologist who enjoys digging into data. He has a website, realclimatescience.com, which examines the use, and misuse, of statistics in Climate Change. This website is well worth reviewing, and his YouTube video My Gift to Climate Alarmists is well worth the watch. In this video, he demonstrates just how charts are manipulated by climate alarmists.

I have also updated my Science Article “Climate Change” to incorporate some of his points, as well as credit him for the excellent work he is doing.

07/20/22 Ecological Impacts

Wind Turbines and Solar Power arrays are not as green as their proponents proclaim. They both have environmental impacts that are often glossed over by their proponents. These impacts are in the Design, Development, Production, Utilization, and Disposal of these items, as I have written in my Article, “Life Cycle Costs (a.k.a. End-To-End or Total Cost of Operation (TCO))”. While all these impacts are inherent in anything that is manufactured, they are often glossed over for Wind Turbines and Solar Power while highlighted for coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power.

Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators generally have less ecological impacts in the utilization phase of End-To-End Total Cost of Operation, which is the phase its proponents focus upon. However, they do have indirect ecological impacts on the wildlife and the environment in this phase that can be disruptive to wildlife and the environment. Their major ecological impacts are in the Development, Production, and Disposal phases of the End-To-End Total Cost of Operation. The largest of these ecological impacts are in the mining of the rare earth minerals required to manufacture Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators and the disposal of these Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators when they reach end-of-life (somewhere between 15 and 20 years after usage).

Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators have the additional problem of their key components being manufactured with rare earth minerals that are unavailable in America and are imported from other countries that are hostile to American interests, as I have Chirp on, "07/15/19 Rare Earth Minerals". If these other countries limit or stop exporting these rare earth minerals, Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators will cease to operate.

Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators are often unreliable when the wind stops blowing, the sun stops shining, or when they are subject to extreme weather conditions, as they are open-air generators of power. Battery backups, if utilized, while Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators are not generating power, are insufficient to supply the energy needs of our economy, and battery backups, if utilized, have major ecological impacts in themselves. Therefore, these battery backups ecological impacts need to be incorporated into any discussions of the Total Cost of Operation ecological impacts of Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators.

Consequently, we need to consider all these issues when we discuss Green Energy and Climate Change. Two fine books that rationally and reasonably discuss these issues are "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All" by Michael Shellenberger and “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters“ by Steven E. Koonin.

07/21/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change

In my Book It of “03/01/21 Apocalypse Never”, I recommend a book by Michael Shellenberger that discusses environmentalism and climate change. A companion book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters” by Steven E. Koonin, is a definitive book on ‘the science’ of climate change, rather than ‘The Science’ of climate change. Dr. Koonin is a scientist who has been involved in Climate Change Research, a leader in science policy in the United States for several decades, and he served as Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy under President Obama.

Dr. Koonin examines the scientific facts and scientific conclusions based upon the facts (‘the science’) of Climate Change rather than what the proponents of Climate Change (The Media, Politicians, Scientific Institutions, Scientists, Activists and Nongovernmental Organizations, and The Public) wishes us to conclude about Climate Change (‘The Science’). He is neither a climate change denier nor a proponent of calamitous climate change but dispassionately analyzes the observations, experiments, computer modeling, and the scientific reasoning of the science of Climate Change. He does believe that human activity has contributed to climate change, but he points out that the significance of the human contribution is very difficult to quantify. He also points out the scientific, technological, economic, sociological, and political difficulties in addressing Climate Change.

For those of us who wish to understand ‘the science’ of Climate Change rather than accept ‘The Science” of Climate Change, this is the book to gain this understanding.

08/02/22 The Corruption of Modern Science

In my Book It of “03/01/21 Apocalypse Never”, I recommend a book by Michael Shellenberger that discusses environmentalism and climate change. Michael Shellenberger is the nationally bestselling author of Apocalypse Never, a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment,” the winner of the 2008 Green Book Award from the Stevens Institute of Technology’s Center for Science Writings, and an invited expert reviewer of the next Assessment Report for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has written on energy and the environment for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Nature Energy, and other publications for two decades. He is the founder and President of Environmental Progress, an independent, nonpartisan research organization based in Berkeley, California.

Another book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters” by Steven E. Koonin, which I have recommended in my Book it of “08/01/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change”, is a definitive book on ‘the science’ of climate change, rather than ‘The Science’ of climate change. Dr. Koonin is a scientist who has been involved in Climate Change Research, a leader in science policy in the United States for several decades, and he served as Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy under President Obama.

In a new book by Mattias Desmet, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism”, he examines and notes how science is often incorrect and misused by persons with a political agenda. Mattias Desmet is a world-renowned Belgian Professor of Clinical Psychology and professor in clinical psychology at Ghent University. He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Psychological Sciences as well as a Master of Science degree in statistics. Professor Desmet is the author of two other books on psychology and over one hundred peer-reviewed academic papers. In 2018 he received the Evidence-Based Psychoanalytic Case Study Prize from the Association for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, and in 2019 he received the Wim Trijsburg Prize from the Dutch Association of Psychotherapy.

In Professor Desmet’s book, he observes that “Science adapts its theory to reality, whereas ideology adapts reality to theory.”, to which I would add that in today’s hyper-partisanship, we often see ideologues attempts to warp science into their theories, and sometimes with the assistance of the scientists themselves. In his book, he utilizes the science of the COVID-19 Pandemic, along with other examples, to explore how science has been misused and corrupted to bolster the governmental responses to the pandemic and to persuade the public as to the efficacy and desirability of these responses. In doing so, the government has increased its powers over the public and consequently decreased individual liberty and freedom. A process that the government has increasingly utilized in the 20th and 21st centuries to accumulate more powers unto themselves. Powers that, if unchecked, lead to a slippery slope into despotism.

All three of these books highlight how modern science has become influenced and corrupted by ideology and partisan politics. Where at the beginnings of science, it challenged religious dogma and established authority, today it has become dogma and authority. As Mattias Desmet has stated, “At its birth, science was synonymous with open-mindedness, with a way of thinking that banished dogmas and questioned beliefs. As it evolved, however, it also turned itself into ideology, belief, and prejudice.”

Today, if you question the science, you are a science denier, and if you dispute the scientists, you are disputing science. Modern science has also become dependent on massive funding to conduct its research. Funding that originates from large institutions, big businesses, and government and, as such, it often fawns on the source of the money by buttressing their ideologies, beliefs, and prejudices in its science. Problems that I have discussed in my Science Articles on “The Problems with Modern Science” and “Scientific Consensus and Settled Science”.

Therefore, science is being corrupted for the subjugation of the public rather than the liberation of the public.

09/10/22 Looking Good Rather Than Doing Good

Governments are too often in the business of looking good rather than doing good. Most environmental and climate change activists believe that they are doing good without having sufficient knowledge of the unintended consequences of their policy decisions. Many consumers often make purchasing decisions based on what they think is good for the environment and lessens climate change. And often, governments make environmental and climate change decisions based on looking good rather than doing good. And many of these decisions are often not good environmental or climate change decisions, as they often do more harm than good to the environment and do not lessen climate change as they shift the repercussions of these decisions from visible impacts to hidden impacts.

It is easier to react to your apprehensions and fears rather than to respond in a rational manner. Responding Rationality requires that you critically examine the issue from multiple perspectives based on intellectual Reasoning. A good example is a recent article by Madison Dibble, “The Unintended Consequences of Declaring 'Climate Emergency'”. Madison Dibble is the communications director for the Center for Accountability in Science,  which examines scientific research in a rational and reasonable manner. As they state in their ‘About Us’ webpage:

“Thanks to the internet, you can now read the latest issue of prestigious peer-reviewed journals as soon as they’re published. Of course, most people don’t get their science news from journals. Health and science reporters distill the details of new studies into news that’s accessible for most readers. Unfortunately, they don’t always have the resources to adequately explain new findings. Additionally, most readers don’t know anything about the organizations and researchers behind these news stories.

Get the info on these important issues here:

• Evaluating Research
• Funding in Science
• Science Journalism”

Some other websites also critically examine environmental and climate change science in a rational and reasonable manner from both the good and bad perspectives. They are:

• Environmental Progress is a non-profit incubator of ideas, leaders, and movements for nature, peace, and prosperity for all. Despite its lofty-sounding goals, they provide reasonable and practicable solutions to environmental and climate change issues from a humanistic perspective.
• Junk Science answers the question – What is “junk science?” as faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas. The scientific method calls for trial and error until the truth is determined. More than likely, this means many trials and many errors. Scientists learn from their errors. So wrong science is part of the scientific method. Therefore, being wrong is not the same as being guilty of junk science. This site examines all the junk that’s fit to debunk.
• The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.
• Real Climate Science critically examines the scientific faults and flaws of climate science. As the late, great, Quantum Physicist Richard Feynman has said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” This website debunks some of the expert’s ignorance with a careful examination and evaluation of the facts about climate change.

Most Americans have good intentions when they respond to environmental and climate change concerns. Most Americans, however, often make their decisions based on feeling good about their decision, and they rarely know all the impacts (both positive and negative) of their decision. The difference between feeling good and doing good is often far-reaching, and therefore, it is important that we decide on environmental and climate change issues based on knowledge of both the positive and negative impacts of our decisions and not react based on our intentions. After all, “the road to hell is often paved with good intentions”.

01/27/23 Childish Naivety and Zealousness

Greta Thunberg (born 3 January 2003) is a Swedish Climate Change activist who is known for challenging world leaders to take immediate action for climate change mitigation. Until now, I have not written about her activism, as I did not wish to engage in child abuse. Now that she is twenty years old, I think it is appropriate to comment on her and her activism. When she was not an adult, her activism could be attributed to a zeal for what she believed in and naivety about how the world operates (economically, politically, and technologically), as well as her inability to reason properly, as I have written in my article "Reasoning" and "Rationality".

This childish naivety and inability to reason properly is all too common amongst many zealous Climate Change activists and other zealous activists. Much of this childish naivety and zealousness can be attributed to our glorification of the young, as I have written in my Article on the “Cult of Youth”. Some of this zealous Global Climate Change activism is because of a lack of understanding of the science behind Global Climate Change, as I have Chirped on "07/21/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change" and written in my Article on “Climate Change”.

Her activism, while addressing a (perceived) global issue, always seems to be targeted at Western Europe and North American nations. These nations are not a major influence on Global Climate Change, and changing their policies would not have a major impact on Global Climate Change. China and India, along with a host of other second and third-world nations, are the nations where most of the impacts of Global Climate Change occur. While she is proud of her bravery in confronting Western Europe and North American nations that she disagrees with their Climate Change policies, this bravery would be more apropos if she confronted China and India, in China and India, about their impacts on Climate Change. While these nations may allow her verbal activism for show purposes, they will not allow any meaningful physical confrontations to occur in their nations. Indeed, they will ignore her activism, except to pontificate and chastise other nations, and they will not change their policies due to economic and political concerns.

As a result of her actions and inactions, Greta Thunberg is not a poster child for Climate Change Activism but a poster child for Childish Naivety and Zealousness.

06/11/23 Forest Fires Happen

Forest fires happen, as it is the nature of forests fires will occur. They have occurred throughout the past, they are presently occurring, and they will occur in the future. They are known scientifically as “Wildfires”, and they are studied scientifically as “Pyrogeography”. A wildfire, forest fire, bushfire, wildland fire, or rural fire is an unplanned, uncontrolled, and unpredictable fire in an area of combustible vegetation. Depending on the type of vegetation present, a wildfire may be more specifically identified as a bushfire (in Australia), brush fire, desert fire, grass fire, hill fire, peat fire, prairie fire, vegetation fire, or veld fire. Some natural forest ecosystems depend on wildfire. Wildfires are distinct from beneficial human usage of wildland fire, called controlled or prescribed burning, although controlled burns can turn into wildfires. Pyrogeography is the study of the past, present, and projected distribution of wildfire. Wildland fire occurs under certain conditions of climate, vegetation, topography, and sources of ignition, such that it has its own biogeography, or pattern in space and time. They have been recorded in the last two hundred years, which can be reviewed in the “List of Wildfires”.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service is responsible for “Forest management” in America. Forest management is a branch of forestry concerned with overall administrative, legal, economic, and social aspects, as well as scientific and technical aspects, such as silviculture, protection, and forest regulation. This includes management for timber, aesthetics, recreation, urban values, water, wildlife, inland and nearshore fisheries, wood products, plant genetic resources, and other forest resource values. Management objectives can be for conservation, utilization, or a mixture of the two. Techniques include timber extraction, planting and replanting of different species, building and maintenance of roads and pathways through forests, and preventing fire.

Federal forest management dates to 1876, when Congress created the office of Special Agent in the U.S. Department of Agriculture to assess the quality and conditions of forests in the United States. In 1881 the Department expanded the office into the Division of Forestry. A decade later, Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, authorizing the President to designate public lands in the West into what was then called “forest reserves.” Responsibility for these reserves fell under the Department of the Interior until 1905, when President Theodore Roosevelt transferred their care to the Department of Agriculture’s new U.S. Forest Service.

Many Global Climate Change Activists have claimed that Climate Change is responsible for an increase and the severity of wildfires (a claim that is disputable). However, before such a claim can be made, the question should be how much of current wildfires are due to inadequate or improper forest management policies. Environmental Activists have for several decades opposed many forest management policies as being harmful to nature, and the Forest Service has curtailed or eliminated some of these forest management policies. Therefore, you must determine if current forest management policies are responsible for an increase and the severity of wildfires before you can attribute this increase or severity to Climate Change.

Consequently, those who make the claim that Climate Change is responsible for an increase or severity of wildfires are being unscientific. The science of Pyrogeography must be utilized on individual wildfires to determine the causes of the wildfire before any claims about the cause can be made. Such Pyrogeography studies often take many months, if not years, to determine the actual cause of a wildfire.

06/29/23 Thoughts of Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton was an American author and filmmaker with extensive scientific education and background who, before he died in 2008, gave some speeches which examined Consensus Science, Environmentalism, and Global Warming (before it became Climate Change). I have posted his thoughts on these topics in my new Science article, Thoughts of Michael Crichton, that I believe is well worth your time and effort to read and consider.

07/17/23 Environmentalism and Climate Change

Before there was Climate Change, there was Environmentalism. Over the decades, Environmentalism has been subsumed by Climate Change, in that If you believe in Environmentalism, then you must believe in Climate Change, and if you believe in Climate Change, then you must believe in Environmentalism. But Environmentalism and Climate Change are distinct, and entangling Environmentalism and Climate Change diminishes Environmentalism.

Environmentalism is important, as it is important that we have clean air and water, as well as a rubbish-free environment. It is also important that we have natural lands, streams, rivers, lakes, and ocean preserves. But there has always been a conflict between the environment and the human utilization of the environment. Human progress has always been dependent on the usage of natural resources, and all human endeavors impact the environment. The question of what acceptable impacts on the environment are allowable to sustain human progress and what restrictions are necessary to preserve the environment.

Modern Environmentalism has gone to the extreme of not allowing any impacts on the environment for human progress. While almost no Americans would agree to unrestricted utilization of the environment for human progress, it is the balance between environmentalism and human progress that needs to be considered before implementing any decision on restrictions to human development that impacts the environment. This is analogous to limiting the deaths that occur from automobile accidents. Each year about 45,000 people in America die from traffic accidents. If you ask the experts to determine how to reduce this number to several hundred at maximum, the only answer is to reduce the speed limit to no more than 5 miles per hour. Nobody in their right mind would accept this solution, as the negative repercussions would be far greater than the positive benefits. We, therefore, must strike a balance for society and human progress to flourish. So, it should be for environmental policies.

I am all in favor of striking a balance in environmental policies and protecting the environment as much as the balance warrants. However, I could not say the same for Climate Change policies. As I have written in many Articles and Chirps, the current Climate Change science is very suspect, as I have pointed out in my Science Article, Climate Change, and my new Science Article, Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing. I believe in climate change. I believe the climate has changed in the past, the climate is currently changing, and the climate will change in the future. This is a meteorological and geological scientific fact. The question is whether human activity is causing the current climate change. This may be true or may not be true, depending upon your interpretation of scientific facts and beliefs. If you have read my Science Article "On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry", you know that I have a scientific orientation to my thinking, and in this article, I apply that scientific thinking to many of the issues and concerns of climate change. Without good science, it is not possible to determine a good balance between Climate Change and Human Progress.

As such, when Environmentalism and Climate Change merge, and Environmentalism becomes entangled in the political discord on Climate Change, it negatively impacts Environmental actions. In addition, the extremism of modern Environmentalists makes people wary of their claims and solutions. Consequently, environmental protection that is beneficial and necessary is questioned and stalled to the detriment of the environment.

07/18/23 The Myths of Climate Change

At the end of the movie “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, the almost true story of the attempt by British Commandos to destroy a train bridge being built by British Prisoners of War during World War II, the doctor who treated the POWs sits on a hillside to view the first train to cross the bridge. Instead, he witnesses the commando raid and the deaths of all but one commando and the death of the British and Japanese commander who built the bridge, as well as many Japanese soldiers. After he witnesses the destruction of the bridge (the untrue part of this story), he exclaims, in the last dialog of the movie, “Madness, Madness, Madness”.

Whenever I read or view the claims of Climate Change alarmists, I get the urge to exclaim, “Madness, Madness, Madness”. This madness of Climate Change alarmists is best explained in the book, “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” by Bjorn Lomborg. Throughout my reading of this book, I chuckled or shook my head and sometimes exclaimed madness. This book is the most understandable explanation of the madness of Global Climate Change alarmists.

Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is. Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education. This book uncovers the truths that Climate Change alarmists don’t want you to know.

In another reasoned book, “Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything” by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato scholars Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot―it's lukewarm. While that may not sound massive, it does, as the book's subtitle notes, change everything. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated―with many of the headline-grabbing predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible.

These two books constitute my upcoming Book It of “08/01/23 The Mythologies of Climate Change”, and I hope that you will read them to better understand Climate Change. The introduction to both books is a must-read for those interested in the truths of Climate Change, while the conclusion of False Alarm is a warning of the repercussions of trying to “fix” Climate Change based on the myths. Myths and Science are diametric, and to believe in myths will doom any policies based upon the myths and result in much wasteful expenditures of time and monies, as well as bringing untold misery upon the world and its people.

For more information on truthful Climate Change science and untruthful Climate Change alarmism, I would direct you to my Book Its’ of “03/01/21 Apocalypse Never” and “ 08/01/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change”, which review the books  "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All" by Michael Shellenberger and  Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin. For more of my thoughts on Climate Change I would direct to my Science Articles Climate Change and Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing.

07/19/23 How to Fix Climate Change

In Bjorn Lomborg's book “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” Section 4 is given over to “How to Fix Climate Change”, in which he discusses the best means to alleviate Climate Change. While I have only a few problems with the chapters on Innovation, Adaptation, and Prosperity, I do have serious problems with the chapters on Carbon Tax and Geoengineering.

Bjorn Lomborg is a big believer in Carbon Taxes to reduce carbon emissions that impact Climate Change. While he acknowledges the problem with a Carbon Tax, he believes that it can still be helpful even if not properly and comprehensively implemented. I have no such belief. With Carbon Taxes, we are talking about much money and political power. Whenever large amounts of taxes are in play, the political lobbying for different tax rates and/or tax exemptions would be extensive, and the results are often inequitable and would blunt the positive impacts of Carbon Taxes on Climate Change. The political power to control the economy and impact the lives of the population increases, often to the benefit or detriment of various groups of people. Carbon Taxes are also a very Regressive Tax that imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich. He also makes no mention of how the tax revenues would be expended. With such large revenues as Carbon Taxes generate, there would be much factiousness engendered. Many politicians would suggest that we provide subsidies to the poor to ameliorate the regressive nature of the Carbon Tax. However, this is just an elaborate means of Redistribution of Income And Wealth, a redistribution that would unduly burden the middle class and have minimal impact on the upper class. There would also be the tendency for politicians and carbon emitters to implement Emissions trading (i.e., Cap and Trade), which I believe is one of the worst ideas ever proposed to combat Climate Change, and that would enrich the traders at the expense of the consumers.

Geoengineering, the deliberate modification of the climate to suit human needs, is a science and technology that Bjorn Lomborg believes should be allocated more funds for Research and Development (R&D). While he does acknowledge the possible negative impacts of applying this science and technology, I believe he woefully underestimates the possible perverse unintended consequences of applying this science and technology. For the reasons I have written about in my Science Article, “Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing”, I believe that we should never attempt to implement this science and technology. I do believe, however, that research on Geoengineering should be increased, as this will contribute to our scientific knowledge and understanding of climate. I also believe that all the nations of the world should ban any attempt by any nation, entities, or individuals to perform any large-scale testing or implementation of this science and technology.

After all, in regard to any Climate Change policies that we pursue, we should remember that “Fools rush in where Angles fear to tread”, and most Climate Change alarmists tend to be fools, as I have Chirped on “07/18/23 The Myths of Climate Change”.

08/03/23 Climate Science Denial

Climate Science Denial is not a denial of science if the denials are based on scientific reasoning. Climate Science Deniers do not deny science, but the scientific consensus of Climate Change advocates and the scientists that support these activists. As I have written in my articles Climate Change, Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, Orthodoxy in Science, and Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing, there is much science that is disputable about Climate Change. In discussing Climate Change, it is important to remember the words of wisdom of Rabbi Elijah Schochet "We can disagree without being disagreeable." However, the advocates of Climate Change have become disagreeable in that anyone who would disagree with their scientific “facts” or “reasoning” is tarnished with the labels of Climate Change Denial or Science Deniers. They have also engaged in "Cancel Culture" for any scientist who would dispute their claims. This is dangerous for the advancement of science, as most advancement of science springs from disputes about scientific facts and reasoning.

Many of the advocates for Climate Change have little scientific background or scientific knowledge, and their scientific knowledge of Climate Change is obtained by examining only the science with which they agree. In this, they have forgotten the adage:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
- Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism 

To drink deep in science requires that you examine the scientific reasoning of those scientists that disagree with the scientific “facts” or “reasoning” behind Climate Change advocates. To this end, I would suggest the following websites that challenge the scientific “facts” or “reasoning” behind Climate Change advocates with other scientific “facts” or “reasoning”:

• Climate Change Dispatch
• Climate Change Reconsidered
• CO2 Coalition
• Copenhagen Consensus Center
• Environmental Progress
• com
• Real Climate Science

Along with these websites, I would recommend the following books that examine the facts, impacts, and repercussions of implementing the policies of Climate Change advocates:

• Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger
• False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg
• Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything by Patrick J. Michaels
• Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin

In reviewing these websites and books, you should remember the following words of wisdom:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

And:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Therefore, consider that you may have been wrong, and do not be afraid to change your opinion in consideration of any new information that you have encountered in reviewing these websites and books. You should also never use the terms Climate Change Denial or Science Deniers for those persons who base their denials on sound science and scientific reasoning. To do otherwise is to make you a denier of science and an impediment to the advancement of science.

10/09/23 Quotes on Good Science

The world is awash in scientific studies. Many of these studies are hogwash, as they employ unscientific methods to reach a conclusion that the scientists desire. All scientists, and the public, should remember the following quotes when evaluating scientific studies:

• "A man should look for what is, and not what he thinks should be."
   - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, and widely held to be one of the greatest and most influential scientists of all time.
  
  
• “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”
   - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• "Reality is the real business of physics."
   - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics

• “[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature, ... compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
  - Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• “If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it.... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”
  - Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• "Good science is always based on good experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory. Sloppy experiments, on the other hand, are frequently counterproductive and provide scientific disinformation. That is why good scientists repeat each other’s experiments carefully."
   - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• "The current world I observe is literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation, and what I will call “techno-cons.” Techno-cons are the application of scientific disinformation for opportunistic purposes."
  - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• "Non-science business managers, politicians, politically appointed lab directors and the like are very easily snowed by scientific disinformation. Sometimes they participate in its origination."
  - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
  Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
  There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
   - Michael Crichton, American writer, and filmmaker educated as a Medical Doctor at Harvard University (BA, MD)
  

As for Albert Einstein's quote on reality I would amend it to say, “Reality is the real business of science, and any science that does not comport to reality is not science.”

10/10/23 A Scientist’s Duty

As I have written in my Science Article, “Orthodoxy in Science”, dissent (a difference of opinion) and Disputation (the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it or a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement) are common in science, especially in the soft sciences. Today, however, I have discerned a significant change in this attitude of tolerance for dissent and disputation that is especially prevalent in the science of Climate Change, COVID-19, and now Transgenderism. Most disconcerting is that the Scientific Journals and Science magazines are suppressing this dissent and disputations between their covers. In doing so, they have forgotten the admonishment of one of the greatest scientists of all time:

“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”
 - Albert Einstein

But conceal is what they do, mostly by not publishing dissent and disputations or constricting what can be said in these articles. This has been pointed out in an article by Patrick T Brown on September 5, 2023, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published”, he relates that “I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.” As he stated in his article:

“This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

He then goes on to explain why this is happening and how it works, ending the article by stating, “What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics—but research that actually helps society.”

When Scientific Journals and Science magazines are not doing this on their own, they often bow to pressure from the government to censor their articles. In an article by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on September 11, 2023, The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists. We Fought Back—and Won, he relates that “Last week, a federal appeals court confirmed that science cannot function without free speech. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reflects on a victory for himself—and every American.” Dr. Bhattacharya then goes on to explain his background, his experience in challenging the official government position on the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the censorship he encountered when he tried to publish his findings. Using proper facts and proper reasoning to reach his conclusions was no defense against the suppression he encountered in trying to publish his findings. The government put pressure on Scientific Journals and Social Media companies to suppress or defame his conclusions, thus violating his Free Speech Rights and his scientific duty not to conceal any part of what he recognized to be true.

In their doing so, the Scientific Journals and Science magazines, along with the government and Social Media companies, are also forgetful of another of Alber Einstein’s words of wisdom:

"A man should look for what is, and not what he thinks should be."
 - Albert Einstein

10/11/23 It’s All About Power and Money

My previous Chirp on “09/05/23 Quotes on Good Science” is especially applicable to Global Climate Change. As I mention in the conclusion of these quotes, “Reality is the real business of science, and any science that does not comport to reality is not science.”. As Global Climate Change predictions do not comport to reality, then I can categorically state that Global Climate Change is not science. Although some parts of the science of Global Climate Change are scientific, when aggregated into the whole of Global Climate Change science, they are dubious science.

Additionally, Climate Change activists enrich themselves through the public fear of Global Climate Change, while politicians electioneer on the fear of Global Climate Change, and scientists obtain funding and grants to investigate Global Climate Change based on the public fear of Global Climate Change. Hence, Global Climate Change is more about money and power than science.

Fear, however, is not a good basis for power and money, as when the fear abates, the former fearful often turns to those that engendered fear. It also pits those that are fearful against those that are not fearful, and using fear as a basis for scientific research corrupts science and scientists. Fear also almost always makes for irrational and unreasonable decisions, decisions that can have detrimental repercussions on people, society, and the economy, especially when a government makes these fearful decisions.

Often these government decisions are also made based on the desire for governmental control of society and/or the economy. Thus, these decisions often increase governmental power to the detriment of the Liberties and Freedoms of the people. In the case of international Global Climate Change accords, we see governments not only trying to control their people but also trying to control the people of other nations.

Much of this fear and control is instituted by the attempts to restrict or suppress the freedom of speech of those that would disagree with the Global Climate Change science. In these restrictions, the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media are complicit. By labeling all dissent of Global Climate Change science as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, as well as disparaging and denigrating dissenters as Climate Change Deniers, as in my Chirp on “08/03/23 Climate Science Denial”, they are implicated in the suppression of Freedom of Speech. In this, we should remember the words of wisdom of George Washington:

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
 - George Washington

In restricting or suppressing those that would disagree with the Global Climate Change science, they are echoing and repeating only one side of the Global Climate Change issue, which results in:

"When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly."
 - George Washington

An insensibly that leads people to unquestionably accept Global Climate Change as factual when there are many legitimate questions and doubts about the science of Global Climate Change science.

10/12/23 Net Zero CO2

The Roman Warm Period (250 BC to AD 400) was a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400. Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted but that they could not set fruit there. The Winter of 536 AD was the most severe and protracted episode of climatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years and initiated the Late Antique Little Ice Age, which lasted from 536 to 560 AD. The medieval scholar Michael McCormick wrote that 536 was the worst year in history to be alive: "It was the beginning of one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year.” In addition, a thousand years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period (about 850–1250 A.D.), Greenland supported Norse farmers who grew crops such as barley, which cannot be grown there now because of the cold. There followed the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1250–1850 A.D., and glaciers have been retreating ever since then.

None of these fluctuations, far more dramatic than anything predicted by Global Climate Change studies, were caused by or had any correlation with, changing CO2 levels. All these severe weather changes were regional, not global, and were abated by natural forces unrelated to CO2 levels. Hence, there is reason to doubt that CO2 levels are directly related to weather changes and that other factors are more impactful to the weather on a regional basis.

In addition, Global Climate Change studies grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that CO2 and fossils fuels provide enormous social benefits for the poor, the United States, people worldwide, and future generations; that reduction of CO2 to Net Zero would be a worldwide disaster; and that there is no significant risk that CO2 and fossils fuels will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather events.

CO2 is the basis for nearly all life on Earth. We owe our very existence to green plants that, through photosynthesis, convert CO2 and water to carbohydrates and oxygen with sunlight. Land plants get the carbon they need from the CO2 in the air. Other essential nutrients—water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc.—come from the soil. In turn, livestock depends on the availability of green plants to consume so that humans can consume the livestock. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, no food, and no human or other life.

Therefore, we should all be wary of claims that Global Climate Change is responsible for weather events, as well as consider the benefits to humanity of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

10/13/23 Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Two prominent climate scientists, physicist Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), submitted a response for comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation. In this response, they argue that the regulations will have “disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, and the United States if fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are reduced to ‘Net Zero’”.

As Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen have also stated, “The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule.” and “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”

They also noted that Professor Richard Feynman, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, incisively explained the scientific method:

“[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature, ... compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

Thus, the scientific method is very simple and very profound: Does theory work with observations? If not, it is rejected and not used. Since theories are tested with observations, fabricating data, falsifying data, and omitting contradictory facts to make a theory work is an egregious violation of the scientific method.

Richard Feynman stated this fundamental principle of the scientific method:

“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it.... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”

In Albert Einstein’s words: “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”

Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen commented that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth, as well as commenting on the Unscientific Method Commonly Used by the EPA and Studies. The entire response of Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen can be downloaded here, and I would encourage all to read this response.

Additionally, Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum mechanics, has decided to sign the World Climate Declaration of Clintel with its central message, “there is no climate emergency”. Dr. Clauser is the second Nobel Laureate to sign the declaration, with the first being Dr. Ivar Giaever, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on Solid-state physics. The number of scientists and experts signing the World Climate Declaration is growing rapidly and is now over 1600 people.

Their response, and the Clintel World Climate Declaration, only reinforces what I have written in my articles on The Problems with Modern Science, Orthodoxy in Science, Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing, and Climate Change. For those that would claim that Drs. Happer and Lindzen are climate science deniers, I would recommend that you read my Chirp on “08/03/23 Climate Science Denial” to this assertion.

10/14/23 The Economics of Wind Turbines and Solar Panels

In a NY Post article by Jonathan Lesser, “Why wind and solar power are running out of juice”, he points out that:

“Wind turbine manufacturers like Siemens and General Electric have reported huge losses for the first half of this year, almost $5 billion for the former and $1 billion for the latter.
Among other problems, turbine quality control has suffered, forcing manufacturers such as Siemens and Vestas to incur costly warranty repairs.
In Europe, offshore wind output has been less than promised, while operating costs have been much higher than advertised.
Offshore wind developers in Europe and the US are canceling projects because of higher materials and construction costs.”

Other reports have pointed out the economic and ecological impacts of Wind turbine failures that sow debris under the fields on which they stand and decimate birds of prey and the hefty costs of disposal and recycling when a wind turbine reaches its end of life. These economic and ecological impacts also hold true for Solar panels, but as they are a newer technology, the economic and ecological impacts are not yet fully known.

It is also true that Wind turbines and Solar panels are heavily dependent on government subsidies and tax credits, which camouflage the economics of these technologies. These government subsidies and tax credits are also a cost-shifting from the companies to the taxpayers that shift the economic risks of these technologies onto the public. Alas, this may make for good politics, but it is not good economics. It is not the function of government to provide subsidies and tax credits to companies or individuals, as it puts them in the position of choosing winners and losers, which a government is ill-suited to accomplish. It also allows politicians to reward and enrich political friends while encumbering political opponents, all at taxpayers’ expense.

Thus, in all economic forecasts and projections of Wind turbines and Solar panels, the costs/benefits are skewered and should not be accepted as reality.

10/15/23 Rational and Reasonable Contrariness on Climate Change

Most Global Climate Change activists like to claim that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and that the science is settled. As I have written in my article on Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, no science is settled, as new scientific thought often replaces old scientific thought. Also, scientific consensus is often wrong as new observations and experiments contradict the consensus. Thus, “consensus science” is an oxymoron, as the following quote succinctly points out:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
 - Michael Crichton

Those that disagree with the consensus or settledness of Global Climate Change science are often labeled as “Science Deniers”. As I have written in my Chirp on "08/03/23 Climate Science Denial", Climate Science Denial is not a denial of science if the denials are based on scientific reasoning. Climate Science Deniers do not deny science, but the scientific consensus and settledness of Climate Change advocates and the scientists that support these activists. Three leading scientists and one knowledgeable and intelligent person on climate science have spoken of their doubts about the consensus and settledness of Climate Change science in the following videos:

Dr. Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology

Dr. Richard Lindzen on Climate Alarmism

Dr. Judith Curry: "Relax, there is no climate emergency!"

Michael Shellenberger: Climate Change Is Real, But It's Not the End of the World

It would behoove all to view these videos before they reach a conclusion on the consensus or settledness of Global Climate Change science. To not do so is to have forgotten the adage:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
- Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism 

10/16/23 We Are Past That Point

There has never been any large-scale technological development that has been without risks. Economic, Political, Social, and Engineering risks are inherent in major technological developments, especially in their gestation and early life. So, it has been for Nuclear Power Generation. As Nuclear Power Generation was born out of the development of the atomic bomb, there were fears among the general public that a Nuclear Power plant could blow up (impossible for the reactor but possible for the surrounding container and building) or the nuclear reactor could melt down (which is possible but unlikely with proper safety engineering). There were also concerns about the safety of spent nuclear fuel disposal. People were also concerned about the possible increased exposure to radioactivity from the use of Nuclear Power Generation. Consequently, Nuclear Power Generation became untenable to the American public.

Just as Hydroelectric and Fossil Fuel electrical generation plants have had accidents and disasters, there have been accidents, but only one disaster, with Nuclear Power Generation. The Three Mile Island Accident was an engineering flaw that began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a flaw in the primary system that allowed large amounts of water to escape from the pressurized isolated coolant loop. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The Fukushima nuclear accident was because of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which resulted in electrical grid failure and damaged nearly all of the power plant's backup energy sources. The subsequent inability to sufficiently cool reactors after shutdown compromised containment and resulted in the release of radioactive contaminants into the surrounding environment. The Chernobyl disaster was caused by a mediocre nuclear reactor design, defective safety engineering, and poor emergency responses as a result of the Soviet Union’s haste to achieve Nuclear Power Generation at a low cost. We are also beginning to see the ecological impacts of Wind and Solar electrical power in their mining, manufacturing, and end-of-life disposal, as well as the harm to wildlife in their operation.

However, most of the design and safety engineering, as well as the emergency responses, have been improved to the point that these fears are unjustifiable and, thus, we are past that point where we should reflexively reject Nuclear Power Generation. It is time to rethink using Nuclear Power Generation properly, assess the risks, and determine the cost/benefits of utilizing Nuclear Power Generation.

For those who are willing to consider using Nuclear Power Generation, I would direct you to a TEDxBerlin video by Michael Shellenberger, “Why I changed my mind about nuclear power”, that examines this issue. For those who continue to reject Nuclear Power Generation, I would ask you to think about the negative risks and consequences of using other electrical generation technologies (which are many), and I would suggest that you view the same video to obtain the facts and truths about Nuclear Power Generation before making up your mind. I would also ask you to remember some prescient words of wisdom:

“If we’re going to tackle Global Warming, Nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power.”
 - Sting, Dec 2016

I would also ask all to remember that:

"The best way to overcome irrational fear is with proper facts and proper reasoning."
 - Mark Dawson

10/17/23 Out of Their Senses

In their infinite wisdom, the Continental Congress sent John Adams over to France to assist Benjamin Franklin with his diplomacy in obtaining French assistance and an alliance with France for them to engage in a war with Britain. They did this because they had heard of the unorthodox diplomacy of Franklin, and they were impatient with the pace of diplomacy. This did not turn out well, as the King of France, the French Aristocracy, and French society did not care for Adam’s or his style of diplomacy. After a short time in France, Adam’s was reassigned to Holland to obtain their assistance (which also did not work out well for other reasons).

Upon reflection, Franklin wrote:

“I am persuaded however that he [John Adams] means well for his Country, is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his Senses.”
  - Benjamin Franklin

I feel the same as Franklin on Adams when I consider the words and deeds of Global Climate Change activists. I believe that they are honest and sincere in their beliefs and mean well, but in most things, they are out of their senses. Out of their senses as they often do not utilize proper facts and proper reasoning, do not account for the economics of their solutions, and often depend on a change in human nature to obtain their goals. They operate in a blind faith mode in their dedication to their objectives, and they brook no dissent in their ranks or contrary viewpoints outside their ranks. This is also occurring within the ranks of Climate Change scientists, as:

“To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
 - Patrick T. Brown, Climate Change Scientist

Consequently, it is dogma that drives Climate Change activists rather than provable facts. As such, they are not rational, and they behave vindictively to those that disagree with them. Thus, they are out of their senses, and rational and reasonable people should pay no heed to senseless people.