Thursday, May 23, 2024

Climate Change & Science


             No matter how much proof is offered that mankind has had minimal or no impact on global temperature, there are those who would still rather believe gross distortions and lies based on science fraud than the truth, wrote environmental scientist Dr. Michael S. Coffman in the Fall edition of RANGE magazine.

“Today’s problem with the man-caused warming hypothesis was that it was never tested to determine if it was true,” he explained. “The purpose of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) was to ‘provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge on climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.’”

It was a given that CO2 was driving climate change. Any scientist who challenged the “fact” was immediately attacked and isolated by the press. No matter how many experiments showed that solar changes were a far better predictor of global climate change than CO2, the IPCC, Environmental Protection Agency and opposing scientists did all they could to trash and bury contrary theories. 

Over time the “proofs” that man was causing global warming have been systematically disproved. One of the worst was the “hockey stick” graph of Dr. Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University. Mann’s graph showed a relatively flat temperature for over the past 1,900 years, when it suddenly shot up in the 20th Century. Dr. Coffman contends that Mann used the wrong statistics, which always gave a hockey stick appearance no matter how random the data was. Mann’s calculations also ignored the well-established historical event, the Little Ice Age during 1650 to 1710, Coffman wrote.

Mann was recently involved in a Canadian trial, which could have far reaching impact, and has been referred to as the “climate science trial of the century.”

Why Scientists Disagree

Dr. Coffman spelled out why scientists disagree on climate change:

•Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields of study. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines.

•Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models.

•IPCC, created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.

•Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.

“No consensus exists when it comes to climate science,” Dr. Coffman wrote. “The only scientists the world hears from are the ones who toe the party line that mankind is destroying the planet with industrial progress.”

Despite the verifiable evidence that warming is not happening, and even when it is, it is primarily caused by solar events, the agenda marches ever forward, Dr. Coffman said. The United States is branded at the international level as the cause of all the trouble and intentionally vilified. The truth is that the U.S. is the leader in reducing carbon emissions, which, in fact have plummeted since about 2007 and are now at 1994 levels. As important, as a percentage of total global CO2 emissions, the U.S. will make up a small amount, contrary to prevailing media accounts.

It’s All About the Money

The entire man-caused climate change push is nothing more than a tool in the hands of the global elite to redistribute international wealth and destroy capitalism—especially the United States, a purpose globalists no longer try to keep hidden. Openly, time and time again at global climate meetings that birth international agreements, the theme is simple:

“The rich countries have caused all the natural disasters, famine and plague with their greedy use of carbon fuels,” Dr. Coffman cited. Also, “the rich countries must pay for their sins by giving billions of dollars to the ‘poor’ countries,” he said, adding that the poor countries want the handouts to be retroactive. Brazil even put forth a proposal for just how the U.S. and other first world nationals could hand over the dough.

Meanwhile, China, which has six of the top 23 most polluted cities on the planet, won’t have to reduce carbon emissions until 2030.

A digital version of Dr. Michel Coffman’s analysis, “Climate Lies,” can be found by visiting


No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here