Climate Science Corruption: Practiced and Perpetuated by Scientific Societies

by Dr. Tim Ball on February 4, 2010

in Data,Government,History,Politics

A recent Pew Center poll shows public concern about global warming continues very low and even declining slightly. They’ve been there for a year now as comparison of their 2009/2010 results show. The most significant shift is in Energy, which dropped from 60 to 49 percent. Partly due to the declining gas prices, but also lower concern about failure of the basic energy sources and reduced threat of carbon taxes.

Comparison Pew Polls 2009-2010

Figure 1: Comparison Pew Polls 2009-2010

People pushing or accepting the false science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are reacting. Responses reveal agendas are political, not scientific. Obama’s White House leads the charge, but all governments continue to pursue policies that make them appear green while ignoring the facts. The policies are unnecessary, extremely expensive, and economically destructive. The real motive is increased taxation and government control. For some, like Obama, it’s about total government control and destruction of the industrially-based economy.

Lord May led a major part of the manipulation of public perception through national scientific societies. It began with the UK Royal Society, who persuaded other national societies to become involved by making public statements. Some (like the Russian Academy climatologist Yuri Israel) protested, but were quickly pushed aside. Benny Peiser wrote that at the UK Met Office’s Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change conference,

The Russian scientist was immediately and disrespectfully admonished by the chair and former IPCC chief Sir John Houghton for being far too optimistic. Such a moderate proposal was ridiculous since it was “incompatible with IPCC policy.”

It became part of the consensus argument still used by some. Consider the view of US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) member and Pacific Institute president Peter Gleick. His article Climate-change deniers versus the scientific societies of the world: Who should we listen to? is a classic. It’s problematic when a scientist doesn’t know that consensus is not a scientific fact or the basis for a scientific argument. Fortunately, some scientists within the various societies and academies are beginning to protest, demanding retractions and revisions.

Already suspicious and galvanized by the events revealed by the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the British public and science community was ahead of the world in recognizing the scam that is official climate science. As a result, they are at the forefront of demanding more reasonable positions.

The UK’s Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages. They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.

They still don’t denounce the entire fraud, but it’s hard to acknowledge serious error – especially if you still don’t understand the science.

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California and former member of the American Physical Society (APS) understands, and dropped a nuclear bomb recently. He is “former” because he tendered his resignation in a devastating letter:

It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the slightest doubt that this is so should read the Climategate documents, which lay it bare. I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that word revulsion a definition of the word scientist. So what has the APS, as an organization done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

Perpetrators of the pseudoscience (and some of their supporters) continue to try and maintain the fraud. No doubt they’re emboldened by the despicable cover-ups orchestrated by governments and universities. As Lewis notes, funding corrupts them:

I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. Your own Physics department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Michael Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise.

One of the first scientists to publicly and professionally identify the corrupt science was Professor Edward Wegman. His report to the US Senate Committee investigating the hockey stick scandal identified the incestuous group publishing together, peer-reviewing each other’s work, and controlling and bypassing the peer-review process. Now there are attempts to discredit him by accusations of plagiarism.

William Connolley is a politically-driven founding member of Realclimate, a web site set up to control and develop propaganda for the CRU group. His main task was control of 500 Wikipedia climate entries. They supposedly removed his editorial control, but it appears that’s not the case. He’s still removing material he doesn’t like.

Gavin Schmidt is an employee of NASA GISS, the agency run by environmental activist James Hansen. Schmidt was actively involved and appeared to spend an inordinate amount of time with Realclimate for a bureaucrat. He recently participated in a project with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) titled Climate Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After Climategate. His involvement after all the disclosures of Climategate is ridiculous, but no less than the entire exercise. Schmidt has a reputation of inaccuracy and less-than-full disclosure.

It’s an outrage that a scientific organization doesn’t know that science is about skepticism and all scientists must be skeptics. But their objective was even more disgraceful:

Panelists will share their best practices for public and media engagement, debate how to respond to critiques, and explore the idea of reframing climate change as a public health issue.

It wasn’t about science at all, but a lesson in how to further deceive and exploit fear. Schmidt’s record shows he is well qualified on those topics. Lewis said the APS went along with the corruption, accepting it as the norm. The AAAS goes further by providing methods and mechanisms for perpetuating “the most successful pseudoscientific fraud.”

If you remain a member of AAAS or any other association and don’t speak out against such falsity and corruption, then you condone the actions and activities. Speak out, or watch science self-destruct.