Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University, William Happer discussed common misconceptions in climate science, especially the negative reputation given to CO2, on Sky News Australia.
The IPA has hosted Professor Happer on a tour around Australian where he spoke to audiences in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.
To find out more about the IPA’s research visit: http://www.ipa.org.au
From Watts Up With That?
Trees, Clouds, and the Unsettling Truth about Climate Science
In a recent revelation from the international CLOUD project at the nuclear research center CERN, researchers have identified sesquiterpenes—gaseous hydrocarbons released by plants—as a pivotal factor in cloud formation. This study, published in the journal Science Advances, might just be the wrench in the works for those who have long touted the notion of “settled” climate science.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been confidently projecting that the global climate will warm by 1.5 to 4.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Yet, these projections are riddled with uncertainties. For instance, in a worst-case scenario, the temperature could swing anywhere between 3.3 to 5.7 degrees Celsius. Such a vast range hardly inspires confidence.
The root of these uncertainties? A glaring lack of understanding of the intricate processes occurring in our atmosphere. The CLOUD project, in its quest to demystify these processes, has been delving deep into the enigma of cloud formation.
Clouds, as it turns out, are not just fluffy white entities in the sky. Their formation and behavior have profound implications for the planet’s temperature. While it’s known that clouds reflect solar radiation, cooling the earth’s surface, the exact mechanics of their formation remain elusive.
Aerosols, both natural and man-made, provide the condensation nuclei essential for cloud formation. However, a significant portion of these nuclei form in the air when gaseous molecules combine, turning into solids—a process known as “nucleation” or “new particle formation” (NPF).
While the role of anthropogenic gases like sulfur dioxide is somewhat-documented, the study has shed light on the underestimated influence of natural gases like sesquiterpenes. Despite being less prevalent than other substances, sesquiterpenes have a disproportionately large impact on cloud formation. In fact, they form ten times more particles than other organic substances at equivalent concentrations.
This study’s findings underscore the need to reconsider the role of sesquiterpenes in climate models, potentially rendering many existing models obsolete.
Conclusion:
For those who’ve been echoing the mantra that climate science is “settled” and beyond dispute, this study serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and unknowns still at play. It’s high time to question the wisdom of pouring vast sums of money into policies based on potentially flawed models. The discovery of sesquiterpenes’ role in cloud formation is a testament to the ever-evolving nature of climate science—a field that is far from settled.
Source: How trees influence cloud formation (2023, September 8).
From Watts Up With That?
Essay by Eric Worrall
Chris Leithner, Joint Managing Director of Leithner & Company Ltd, on why going with the crowd on climate change violates the basic principles of sound investment.
Why value investors should doubt “climate science”
By nature they’re sceptics, and at key junctures become contrarians. I show why they should disbelieve the orthodoxy – and why it matters.
CHRIS LEITHNER
Leithner & Company LtdIn this article, I answer these crucial questions. I proceed from four premises:
- Value investors are naturally sceptical, and always think for themselves.
- They don’t let conventional wisdom sway them – whether in the form of crowds, a “consensus” of academic and other “experts” or stampeding mobs led by jet-setting UN Secretaries General, Australian billionaires, etc.
- In key respects and at crucial junctures value investors are bold contrarians.
- They think independently, but they’re also humble. In particular, when necessary they heed competent external views and research.
Applying these principles to an assessment of “climate science,” it’s clear that climate change isn’t a systemic risk: it’s a mass hysteria. Like all manias, it will collapse when people – above all, energy consumers and taxpayers – recover their senses.
“When everybody is on one side of a market,” reckons Jim Rogers, the consensus “has nearly always proven to be wrong. We human beings have not changed in hundreds of years, so we are still guided by the same fears and aspirations.” Howard Marks concurs: “What’s clear to the broad consensus of investors is almost always wrong.” Carl Icahn is less categorical: “The consensus … is generally wrong …”
In conversations over the years, I’ve come to realise that climate zealots, Net Zero nutters, etc. – including those who claim that they’re scientists – fundamentally misunderstand science. The tell-tale sign is their use of the phrase “the science” (note the insertion of the definite article). They falsely regard science as a body of knowledge at a given point in time. Furthermore, they arrogantly believe that today’s “climate science” is 100% correct – and therefore that it always will be.
So-called “climate science” rests not upon credible theories and valid and reliable data, “but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.” Moreover, “the Unscientific Method …, 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.”
Read more: https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/why-value-investors-should-doubt-climate-science
It’s difficult to do Chris Leithner’s piece justice in just a few short quoted paragraphs. He has most definitely done his research, with multiple quotes from scientists ranging from William Happer, Steven Koonin, and a star cast of other leading skeptics.
And you don’t have to look far to see companies and individuals who are only just starting to feel the hurt from their rash green investment decisions.
Consider automobile companies: Companies whose CEOs rushed headlong into massive electric vehicle investments, perhaps over-confident that governments would force ordinary people to buy their unwanted product, only to see politicians hesitating in the face of electoral backlash and public anger.
In my opinion we have not seen a proper reckoning yet for what could turn out to be a major automobile industry financial disaster. So long as politicians maintain the fiction that fossil fuel vehicles will definitely be phased out in the near future, automobile companies don’t have to mark down their failing EV investments. Automobile company CEOs can maintain the fiction that multi-billion dollar EV manufacturing outlays are valuable strategic investments in the future. Don’t look at the large unsold inventories piling up, think about how wonderful it will all seem next year.
Or not.
Every major crash is preceded by a handful of investment visionaries pointing out the obvious, shouted down by the outrage of those who have committed their fortunes to folly. Perhaps it is Chris Leithner’s turn to be that visionary.
From CFACT
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.
A global network of over 1609 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
Epilogue
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.
From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts
World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf
Read the declaration at CLINTEL.org
Read the PDF version with list of signers
Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. CLINTEL’s main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy.
From Watts Up With That?
Opinion by Kip Hansen — 1 August 2023
Here I ask a simple question. Are we all wasting our time with climate science? Reading about it, writing about it, worrying about it, fighting about it, arguing about it.
To my horror, I discover that I have been involved in this enterprise for far more than a decade, originally writing from the Caribbean where my wife and I were living on our sailing catamaran while doing various humanitarian projects. Not quite as long as Anthony Watts, who started WUWT in 2006, but nearly.
Anthony’s efforts led him to be the owner and host of the world’s most viewed website on climate. Given that WUWT represents the “minority report” on climate, that is a heck of an achievement. Yet the jury is still out on how much of an impact on climate policy and public opinion this site, and the dozen or so other high impact climate skeptic websites, blogs, podcasts, etc., have made and will make.
Much of the “climate science” being done, at least that small portion that reaches the public eye by appearing in the mass media, falls into that category which the honorable Dr. Judith Curry long ago labelled “climate science ‘taxonomy’” – “‘taxonomy’, i.e. research that is neither useful nor contributes to fundamental understanding”. That type of so-called climate science is turned into climate alarm in spades, in diamonds, in hearts and in clubs – the whole deck.
I am speaking of the nonsense one reads and hears from NPR, PBS, BBC, NBC, AP, CNN, Reuters, ABC, the NY Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post – many of whom have openly joined themselves into propaganda cabals ( and this one) dedicated to spreading misleading information about climate and climate change. [A new one has just been announced: GRIST and AP. ] Even when a media organization is not directly associated with one of these collaborative misinformation outlets, their editors and journalists have to face the wrath of those that are – there are few working journalists willing to fight the tide on climate alarmism.
Even the IPCC-boosting Pielke Jr. has been blasting the media for repeating absolutely false narratives on extreme weather — the very same media that repeats endlessly the mindboggling crazy pronouncements of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres — “the era of global boiling has arrived.”
CLINTEL, has just published an extremely valuable book, “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC“, widely available, in softcover and eBook formats. The book examines the IPCC’s AR6 and documents biases and errors in the Working Group 1 (Scientific Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. [Disclosure: I contributed one of the chapters – thus have a conflict of interest.]
We see the forked-tongued enemy. A two-pronged approach. First, the underlying science is slightly warped, slightly biased, misleadingly reported in the latest IPCC Assessment Report (AR6) WG1 and WG2. A lot of this is simple confirmation bias and forced-consensus biasing. The truth in is there, but one needs to dodge the rhetoric and look only at the data itself, which is mostly correct. And then, the Summaries for Policy Makers (SPMs) wildly misrepresent what the science sections have said and transmogrify it into something barely recognizable.
From the SPMs, the politicians, media moguls, the Davos Crowd, the Green-New-Dealers, the Great Reset-ers, turn the SPM political opinions into outright lies and give the media propaganda cabals their marching orders.
And then, here we are. Here I am. I have written about 100 essays and opinion pieces here since 2020 alone. I’ve been at it more than a decade. There are a few dozen of others like myself who have researched and written endlessly, both in books and on the ‘Net, to expose the lies, the disinformation, the misinformation, and the slimy political-shenanigans behind the efforts to “decarbonize” the economy of the world in the name of fighting global cooling, global warming, climate change, the climate crisis.
Every few years we see a slight shift towards the climate skeptic way of thinking in the general populace – and recently, a few nudges in our direction from governments. The UK will drill-baby-drill to supply its own energy needs from its own resources. Japan is re-opening nuclear power plants and building new ones. In November last year, General Motors announced that it will stick with internal combustion engines. India, the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter and the world’s most populous country , is planning for an expansion of its oil and gas sectors (even as it aims to hit net zero by 2070). Those living in the real world realize that as Africa grows itself into prosperity, into the world of middle-class nations, it will do so on the back of coal and petroleum produced electricity. Even relatively well-developed South Africa has acknowledged it needs to continue to burn coal for the present and foreseeable future.
I hope that readers see the obvious contrasts between the “reality” presented daily in the world’s mass media and what is actually happening in the world. A large percentage of the material appearing on this website points out those contrasts, every single day. Heartland, the CO2 Coalition, Clintel and other international climate skeptical organizations do so in print and through broadcasts, podcasts, YouTubes and interviews on wide-reaching news outlets. There are many climate skeptic oriented bloggers doing good work. Some of the “good news” is getting out there.
Is what we do worthwhile? Yes — It is always worthwhile to do what is right, to do what is good, to tell the truth, to fight the good fight against falsehoods and lies.
But are we making an impact? I can no longer tell – I am having a little bit of a “I think I’m burnt-out” stage. I see a news article about a topic, and I think, “That’s utter claptrap, I’ll write about that.” Only to discover that I’ve already written about it a half-dozen times and really have nothing further to say than what I have already said. I sometimes fear I just don’t have anything more to say, at all – and when I teach Public Speaking, I tell students, “If you don’t have anything to say — don’t get up to speak or if you are already up, sit back down.”
So, my question for the day, and please do comment, I promise not to get mad at you…..
Should I just sit back down and shut up?
or
Should I keep banging away, just because ‘someone has to’?
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
I guess the same question applies to all of us here….
This is, I hope obviously, a piece meant to stimulate discussion. So, please, please, discuss.
On Pielke Jr.: I like Pielke Jr. He does good work. He tells the truth as he sees it. He is one of the most effective of the “climate skeptical voices”, albeit in his own way. He is an IPCC-booster but even he thinks it needs serious reform. He has paid a heavy price for his temerity. Read his substack.
And yes, I do think that there is also some nonsense published here – some even written by me. That’s the price we pay for freedom. But, the way I see it, we err in an honest search for truth.
I don’t expect to take too much of a role in the discussion, I have said what I have to say above. But, if your start a comment with “Kip…”, I’ll try to reply.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
From Watts Up With That?
Geoffrey Sherrington
Corruption has been in the news more and more in recent years.
Corruption is in politics, corruption is in medicine, corruption is in finances. corruption seems to be growing fast, but it is hard to measure and define it because many people consider it a bad thing that polite people should mention. So, let us have a look.
Here is one general definition of corruption:
“Corruption is the act and effect of giving or receiving something of value so that someone will either do or not do something, sidestepping a formal or implicit rule about what that person should do, to the benefit of the person giving the object of value or of a third party”.
Source (1). 2017. Antonio Argandoña, in The Changing Face of Corruption in the Asia Pacific
Science is also being corrupted.
“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills.”
Source (2): May 5, 2023. Dr John Clauser, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
‘In American laboratories and universities, the spirit of Trofim Lysenko has suddenly been woke.’
Source (3). July 12, 2020. Lawrence Krauss, Scientist and writer, in the Wall Street Journal.
‘When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die. Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say … the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling”.
Source (4). November 13, 2020. An Editorial in the British Medical Journal discussed ‘Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science’.
“ … the very colleagues who propelled too high, too fast. In the article he comes across as somewhat non-plussed as though worrying about the quality of your data is not what stars do”.
Source (5). February 7, 2020. The corruption of scientists by fame and money. In Clothing the Emperor forum.
Overall, the scientists I have met do not like corruption, but few have done much to combat it.
Scientists like science free of corruption because corruption hinders advancements that help society as well as themselves. Some of these advancements involve new concepts, like the discovery of the chemical polymerase chain reaction PCR by Kary Mullis (6). Other advances can replace conventional wisdom in one stroke, like the discovery by Marshall and Warren that ulcers (7) are caused by bacteria, not by stress, so are treatable with antibiotics. Corruption of science slows such magnificent advances.
The LNT model and the Rockefeller Foundation.
There is a US corruption example (8) now becoming more public following decades of investigation by Professor Edward Calabrese (9) a toxicologist from Amherst University, Mass. This corruption started maybe around the 1950s. It is still with us. It has cost the world billions, maybe trillions of dollars by now.
This particular corruption starts with what seems a mild topic, the relation of the dose of a toxin to its harm. Continuing corruption has kept some questionable science in approved use, while alternative scientific studies have been suppressed by deliberate actions. (10).
The example is about the questionable LNT model, for Linear No Threshold. It implies that there is no lower limit to a toxin dose because harm can be caused by all doses down to “zero” dose, whatever that is.
The alternative Threshold Dose Response models TDR allow for have a lower dose threshold beyond which no harm can be shown. TDR came first in time history. It was replaced by corrupt actions in the 1950s Cold War era.
These dose/harm models are important in science. There was a burst of study after WWII because more people might be exposed to nuclear bomb test radiation. Continued use of the questionable LNT model has affected peaceful uses of nuclear radiation such as electricity generation and how often a person has medical X-ray scans.
The LNT model is applied in many every-day matters. For pharmaceuticals, it is of fundamental importance to the safety of design of medical drugs. For environment protection, the LNT model has allowed regulatory bodies like the US Environmental Protection Agency EPA to exert control over many diverse products and methods. Dose/harm relations are involved with every new product on offer when we spontaneously ask “Is it safe?”
In this LNT case, the corruption began with a display of power and wealth at US Presidential level. This was done by the Rockefeller Foundation, here “The RF”.
Cut to the chase, in the 1950s The RF stacked the deck with its own people and money to get authorization from President Eisenhower for government-approved research into harm from nuclear radiation doses.
Here is a time series of some main events: Apart from Eisenhower, all people were linked to The RF
1949. Edward B Lewis, biologist, became a Fellow of The RF.
1950. Detlev Bronk from The RF was appointed President of US National Academy of Sciences, NAS.
1950. Dean Rusk became a trustee of The RF.
1951. Detlev Bronk joined Board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
1952. Dean Rusk became President of The RF.
1953. Detlev Bronk became President of the Rockefeller University.
1953. The RF Board discussed the strategy of study of nuclear radiation doses on humans.
1954. Warren Weaver became Vice President for Natural and Medical Sciences of The RF.
1955. Detlev Bronk became President of National Academy of Sciences.
1955. Dean Rusk, The RF President, wrote to US President Eisenhower, to authorise the National Academy of Sciences to conduct The RF research proposal. (Link to letter below).
1955. US President authorised National Academy of Sciences to be involved, as requested.
1955. Creation of the main NAS Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, BEAR.
1955. Warren Weaver, The RF President for natural and Medical Sciences, appointed to head the BEAR Genetics Committee.
1955. BEAR program appointed six committees: genetics, pathology, meteorology, oceanography and fisheries, agriculture and food supplies, and disposal and dispersal of radioactive wastes.
1955. The BEAR Genetics committee was instructed by geneticist Tracy Sonneborn (earlier grantee of The RF) to dismiss alternatives to the preferred new LNT model.
1956. First BEAR report.
1956. The NAS arranged for Scientific American staff to write the Genetics Panel Public Report under Weaver’s guidance.
1957. E B Lewis (Fellow of The RF, 1949) published an influential paper in Science “Leukemia and Ionizing Radiation” describing harm from low doses, supporting LNT.
1960. Second BEAR report.
1961 Dean Rusk left The RF to be US Secretary of State under President Kennedy.
Here is the letter from The RF to the US President. (11).
By these actions, The RF used power and money to capture the essence of the management of nuclear radiation risk, which is now excessive and costly. Power and money have been used to entrench the LNT model ever since. Its central role in regulation of industries and people has grown.
Incidentally, it is plausible that Australia’s post-1950s history of no nuclear electricity generation by law, is related to the LNT fearmongering by The RF and others. Elsewhere, the cost to build new nuclear power plants globally is now near an order of magnitude greater than the real cost.
Colleague Peter Lang has published nuclear cost estimates (12) affected by zealous regulation.
In this 2023 summary paper, (13) “EPA” in nuclear regulation shows 40 times by word search.
The central importance of LNT is the enablement of regulators to intervene in every activity of people and industries that involves harm of one type or another.
This 2018 paper (14) by Cardarelli & Ulsh amplifies the theme. LNT has transformed from a scientific model to a tool of regulation. Proof of this comes from observing that those who promote LNT today are mostly in regulatory positions, while those objecting to LNT are mostly from industries with hands-on experience.
This split between researchers is also evident in publications about the reality and benefits of hormesis, a process described in many publications by Dr Calabrese.
The Rockefeller Foundation, “The RF” and Woke.
The RF began by philanthropic grants of money to advance science, especially in medicine. Its first big, successful project helped to eradicate the Hook Worm as a threat to human health and longevity. Today, scientific support by The RF seems to have metamorphosed like a beautiful butterfly turning into a caterpillar. The RF is now selling its soul to regulators as seen, for example, this extract supporting guesswork by EPA. (15).
“Nevertheless, unless compelling evidence for a practical threshold can be obtained, it must be acknowledged that there is likely to be a risk even at the lowest doses of ionizing radiation. Denials only fuel distrust. It is better to acknowledge that the science, so far, is consistent with a non-zero risk at low doses, even if direct verification is lacking”.
There was erosion of hard science evident in The RF way back after WWII. Read these formative, chilling lines from The RF Annual Report for 1945. (16).
“We cannot escape the obligation, in this scientific age, to comprehend science; but in the supreme question which faces our generation, physics and chemistry and engineering have no answers for us.”
Today, The RF is not merely leading the woke inventory. It is a creator of woke ideas. Few people have yet studied and reported upon the woke movement – it is one that is savage in casting out those who criticise it. My personal preference for dealing with woke (17) aligns with descriptions in this March 2023 video by James Lindsay.
”Woke is supposed to advance equity … The definition of equity comes from the public administration literature – “an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal”. They’re going to redistribute social and cultural capital in addition to economic and material capital. Woke is Maoism with American characteristics. Woke is Marxism.”
Recall that The RF started out in 1913 as a philanthropy to disburse money accumulated by John D Rockefeller (Snr.) from his business with Standard Oil and others. For a while, it stuck to its knitting as its Charter required. Today, much of its philanthropic funds is from investments in businesses. At the start, it did not pay income tax because there was no such tax. Today, it has tax benefits that to some might seem inconsistent with philanthropy. It is plausibly a scavenger of new ways to treat or to control Society. Some of the causes it is now funding are not in need of philanthropy. For example, it gives grants that promote the idea of climate change, which some regard as replete with corrupt science.
The RF is now giving to causes less poor and needy, illustrated by this extract about control of international banking. (18)
.“New York | June 20, 2023 ― Ahead of the New Financial Pact Summit, chaired by Emmanuel Macron, President of the French Republic, and Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and The Rockefeller Foundation announced USD 2,781,783 in funding from the $5.25 million Multilateral Development Banks Challenge Fund (“the Fund”): Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg, Caribbean Development Bank, FSD Africa, IDB Invest, Risk Control Limited, and University of Leeds. The six grantees, which were selected to help increase efficiency and innovation in the world’s development finance system, advance the Fund’s overarching goal of accelerating investment for the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Paris Climate Agreement”.
The RF is now flirting with arm wrestling the US Supreme Court (19) whose 2023 judgement on inclusion was questioned:
“The following is a statement by funders and philanthropic organizations in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
“A full list of signatories follows. The Supreme Court’s decision impedes colleges and universities from selecting their own student bodies and fully addressing systemic racial inequalities that persist. The ruling threatens to return this nation to a time when education and opportunity were reserved for a privileged class. It endangers sixty years of multiracial movements to challenge our nation to live up to the ideals enshrined in our founding documents. The decision erects new barriers to building a society in which everyone has the opportunity to improve their lives, communities, health, and education”.
One might ask if The Rockefeller Foundation, once a friend of science, society and industry, is now a powerful enemy.
Remediation.
(These remediations are purposely written in loose science language so that more people can understand.)
Suggestion 1.
For remediation, the regulatory industry should abandon unsupported loose science in favour of hard science.
Science is diverging into traditional “hard” science and newer “loose” science. Hard science is validated by measures to estimate, to display and to minimise uncertainty. Loose science tends to be silent about or pay lip service to uncertainty; belief tends to dominate over observation and measurement.
In financial circles, auditors used to be proud, even required, to account for the very last cent. Today, many people care little if a figure is in millions or billions of dollars. Despite the 3 orders of magnitude between them they are just large numbers that numb the mind.
The split between hard and loose science started in my lifetime. Nuclear radiation harm was a topic that I studied from 1972 at age 29 after we discovered the Ranger uranium deposits, for a while the largest and richest the world had known.
Suggestion 2.
Scientific publications should advise authors that their place of employment should not impact on their pre-publication scientific studies.
Hard science authors are now mainly from industry and research bodies within and close to industry. Loose science is more associated with those who regulate science. Many of the regulatory science authors are now expressing desperation, cutting corners in the “publish or perish” academic atmosphere, desperate for salary to fund the next sex-change operation on their children in accord with ideals of woke about what a modern parent should do.
Suggestion 3.
Try to advance science with impartial methods.
Traditional science has advanced through better science replacing poorer science. Objection to existing science is integral to the scientific advance. But, there has been an increase in the rate of disappearance of papers ready for publication and in the cancellation of papers already accepted. An example of such rejection happened recently when a medical science pre-print paper by Hulscher et al about autopsy results from Covid-19 vaccinated people was visible in The Lancet for only a few hours. (20).
Suggestion 4.
Scientific authors should learn more about the science of measurement uncertainty.
Proper estimates of the uncertainty of numbers used in publications is essential for their integrity. While some papers show excellent understanding of uncertainty, others publish works with naïve estimates that can mislead. The quality of treatment of uncertainty is a measure of the quality of the research. There are many examples from climate change science, where past temperature measurements are reported badly. An article that I wrote for Watt’s Up With That blog a year ago expresses some measurement uncertainty problems. (21).
Suggestion 5.
Be aware that the use of power and money continues to corrupt science; try to speak against this privilege.
Suggestion 6.
Study the actions of “philanthropic” bodies to discern if they are any different to a commercial organization that might not enjoy taxation advantages.
Bodies such as The RF, the United nations UN, the World Health Organization WHO, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to name just a few, comprise unelected people who at times are working against the directions of Governments and people. A recent example from medical sciences is explained in this video by a British MP in the House of Commons, Andrew Bridgen with Dr John Campbell about the WHO. (22).
Suggestion 7.
Smaller publishing companies from many countries could be more aggressive in earning market share for scientific publication.
Scientific journal ownership is complicated and under frequent change. Several of the major scientific publications like “Nature” and “Scientific American” are/were owned partly or mostly by German companies. (23).The leading journal “Science” is owned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS. Over the last 2 decades, Germany has been at the centre of climate change activism and government policies like Energiewende that have had downside financial implications that might imply that the German philosophy had got it wrong. Scientific publications, if indeed affected this way, could improve with wider national diversity of ownership and direction. From Wikipedia:
“In 2013, prior to the merger with Springer and the creation of Springer Nature, Nature Publishing Group’s owner, Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, bought a controlling stake[3][4] in Frontiers.[5] Before Springer Nature was formed in 2015, Nature Research (as the Nature Publishing Group) was a part of Macmillan Science and Education, a fully owned subsidiary of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.[6]”
References:
(1)The Changing Face of Corruption in the Asia Pacific | ScienceDirect
(3). The Ideological Corruption of Science – WSJ
(4). Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science | The BMJ
(5). https://www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor/2020/02/07/the-corruption-of-scientists-by-fame-and-money/
(6). https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
(8). HPS.org
(9). Edward Calabrese : School of Public Health & Health Sciences : UMass Amherst
(11). https://www.geoffstuff.com/preslet.docx
(12). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2899971
(15). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/low-dose-284-291.pdf
(16). https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-1945-1.pdf
(17). https://youtu.be/OVZPYQS1dFA
(20). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4496137
(21). https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/24/uncertainty-estimates-for-routine-temperature-data-sets/
(22). New WHO International Health Regulations concerns – YouTube
(23). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Portfolio
(24). https://www.geoffstuff.com/sicorruption.docx
………
The source material for this article is drawn from a number of longer extracts from the literature. Summarised in Supplementary Information. (24).
Much of the quoted material in this article is Copyright 2003 by The RF. The author of this article has reproduced material under the US fair use doctrine, summarised as: Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.
The author.
Geoffrey Sherrington is a scientist in Melbourne, Australia. A self-composed c.v. is here.
https://www.geoffstuff.com/curriculum.docx
Editor’s Note: I noticed when I read this article that Geoff had missed the sponsorship of the notoriously alarmist Climate Nexus
Climate Nexus is a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors,
a 501(c)3 organization.
For more on this topic, go to ClimateTV and select the topic Climate Corruption
From CFACT
By Joanne Nova
John Clauser, Nobel Prize winner.
Dr John F Clauser of quantum entanglement fame, leaves no doubt about his thoughts:
“…climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”.
Despite that, the ABC and BBC types won’t pick up the phone to ask Dr John F Clauser why a man with his remarkable reputation would risk looking like an idiot, and speaking up as a climate skeptic. It’s not that they are afraid he might bore the audience or sound like a kook. They won’t ask him because they’re afraid he’ll have a good answer.
How much damage would it do to the cause if the audience finds out that one of the highest ranking scientists in the world disagrees with the mantra? It would break that sacred spell. Suddenly, the unwashed masses will realize “there is a debate”, and that all the times they were told “the debate was over”, they were being lied too.
The same team that tells us that we must “listen to the experts”, won’t listen to any experts they don’t like. They rave about “UN Experts” that hide the decline, but run a mile to avoid the giants of science. They’ll ask high school dropouts about climate change on prime time TV before they interview the Nobel Prize winners. It’s a lie by omission. It’s active deception. And the whole climate movement is built on it.
The thing about skeptical Nobel Prize winners is that they make the namecalling “climate denier” program look as stupid as it can get.
Thade Andy, RIPT:
Dr. John F. Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has criticized the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
Along with two others, Dr Clauser, an experimental and theoretical physicist, was the 2022 recipient of the Nobel Prize for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light.
The CO2 Coalition issued a statement when Clauser joined their board of directors in May.
His studies of the science of climate provide strong evidence that there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world,” said Dr. William Happer, chair of the board of the CO2 Coalition.
According to Dr. Clauser, …” In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
Other Nobel Prize winning skeptics in Physics include Ivar Giaever who won a Nobel for tunneling in superconductors in 1972, and Robert Laughlin who won the 1998 Physics Nobel Prize for his explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.
Climate skeptics not only outnumber believers but they outrank them too — not that point-scoring in the pagan consensus battle tells us what the truth is. The point of telling the world about prizewinning skeptics is to expose the mass media propaganda campaign and the hypocrisy of their sacred cows.
This article originally appeared at JoNova
A prize-winning science graduate in molecular biology. She has given keynotes about the medical revolution, gene technology and aging at conferences.
She hosted a children’s TV series on Channel Nine, and has done over 200 radio interviews, many on the Australian ABC.
She was formerly an associate lecturer in Science Communication at the ANU. She’s author of The Skeptics Handbook which has been translated into 15 languages. Each day 5,000 people read joannenova.com.au
From Watts Up With That?
Essay by Eric Worrall
John Clauser, Nobel Prize winner.
First Published JoNova; Physicist Dr John Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has slammed the climate crisis as “pseudoscience”.
NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”
Dr. John F. Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has criticized the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
Along with two others, Dr Clauser, an experimental and theoretical physicist, was the 2022 recipient of the Nobel Prize for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light.
He has criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming, according to a coalition of scientists and commentators who argue that an informed discussion about CO2 would recognise its importance in sustaining plant life.
In a statement issued by the CO2 coalition, Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors – CO2 Coalition Dr. Clauser said that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world”
Read more:
What can I say? Dr. Clauser actually has a Nobel Prize in Physics, unlike say leading climate alarmist Dr. Michael Mann, who apparently confused a certificate of contribution with actually being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Dr. Clauser is not the only Nobel Laureate to slam climate science. Jo Nova points out Ivar Giaever who won a Nobel for tunneling in superconductors in 1972, and Robert Laughlin who won the 1998 Physics Nobel Prize for his explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect are also climate skeptics.
And who can forget that hilarious time PBS tried to dismiss thousands of climate skeptic Oregon Petition signatories as scientific nobodies, and randomly pulled out the signature of Edward Teller, the physics genius who designed the first Hydrogen Bomb? Teller’s signature somehow got blurred during PBS post production processing, but it was still recognisable enough so that questions were asked.
Don’t forget folks, settled science. /sarc
Update (EW): h/t JoNova – Corrected the spelling of Ivar Giaever’s name
Live discussion with Climate Debate UK and guests on recent events in climate science, policy and politics.
Climate Debate UK co-founders, Ben Pile and Ed Rennie are joined by the Together Declaration’s Alan Miller to talk about democracy, and economist Catherine McBride to talk about the economics of Net Zero.
Live discussion with Climate Debate UK and guests on recent events in climate science, policy and politics.
Tonight’s guests:
Andrew Montford – Director of Net Zero Watch
Andrew Orlowski – Business columnist at the Daily Telegraph
Chris Morrison – Environment editor, the Daily Sceptic
David Turver – new to the climate debate, but is the author of deep dives into climate economics.
