Science does not proceed on the basis of consensus. The history of science is full of cases where a minority (or even single individuals) turn out to be right and the majority turns out to be wrong.  The German scientist, Wegener, provides a Twentieth Century example, through the response of the scientific community to his notion of continental drift. For some sixty years the theory was derided by the majority of the geophysical community and papers supporting it were declined for publication by leading journals. Minorities, particularly, have a problem where there are strong ideological pressures towards conformity. In these cases, some fortitude is required to maintain what is seen to be a deviant or heretical view. Apart from the obvious example of Galileo the situation of biological scientists in the Soviet Union, subjected to the dominant (and erroneous) dogma of Lysenko about the inheritability of acquired characteristics, might be cited.

In the contemporary world of public financing of intellectual activity, there are also more subtle pressures towards conformity. One of the many baleful consequences of directed or ‘performance’-based research funding is the extent to which it privileges the prejudices and paradigms of those holding power in the system at any time. The result is to favour for research support and publication those who follow the party-line. This characteristic, and the dominating connection between this activity and promotion, ensures the production of vast quantities of mediocre and repetitive material in our universities and like establishments and discourages the long-term and more speculative activity that used to be their academic glory. It is to the continuing shame of all the New Zealand universities that this is so. In this connection it is noteworthy that in the UK the panels making these systemic judgements about academic worth have now been instructed to destroy all the notes on which the judgements were made.

All this has important implications for our contemporary concerns about climate change and about what our response ought to be to claims that a major crisis is looming and, as a consequence, certain social, political and economic steps should be taken. As is well-known, there is serious and persistent scepticism in regard to both the magnitude and the direction of climate change and the degree to which it may be said to be anthropogenic. This might be a largely ‘academic’ question were it not for the fact that measures of taxation and regulation are proposed that have the potential to cause significant harm to the economic well-being of New Zealand. Unlike the Wegener case, the consequence of suppressing the deviant view may not be simply that we remain in ignorance. It may be that we embark on policies that are likely to be very damaging to us and only marginally advantageous (if at all) to the wider global community. Read more here.

In Charles Krauthammer’s May 30 must-read column, ”Carbon Chastity,” he rightly lambastes environmentalists as resurrected communists/socialists who have latched on to the environment and climate change as a means to advance their anti-people social agenda. The specific occasion for his justifiable outrage is a recent proposal by a British parliamentary committee to institute a personal carbon ration card for every citizen.

The plan would place limits on food and energy consumption in the form of credits not to be exceeded - except through the potential for heavy-carbon users, often the wealthy, to purchase credits from lower-carbon users, often the less wealthy. In other words, their answer to global warming is wealth redistribution. Though I thoroughly endorse Krauthammer’s condemnation of the plan, I have to take issue with his adoption of loaded terms straight out of the green lexicon to argue his point.

In trying to position his agnosticism on whether man-made CO2 emissions are actually cause for concern, his column begins: “I am not a global warming believer. I am not a global warming denier.” The term “denier” is the environmentalists’ preferred means of tar-and-feathering anyone who dares question climate alarmism - a key tactic in their effort to dupe the nation into consuming the green Kool-Aid.

Environmentalists have convinced many in the mainstream media that skepticism toward the very shaky science behind global warming alarmism is akin to the indescribeably creepy views of anti-Semitics who deny that the Holocaust occurred. One event is an indisputable historical fact of hideous dimensions; the prophesied specter of catastrophic global warming, however, is just a politically driven fear scenario based on unreliable computer models and the wishful bending of the laws of climate physics.

There is no comparison. Can anyone reasonably equate, say, the 31,000 U.S. scientists, engineers and physicians who recently signed a petition against global warming alarmism - including Princeton theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson and Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Richard Lindzen - with the likes of neo-Nazis and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who constantly calls for Israel’s destruction? See more here.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems—from ocean currents to cloud formation—that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe. There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research—untainted and reliable—to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean. But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo. Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing. Read more here.

A Cabinet minister has allayed fears that ice caps on Mt Kilimanjaro that is a big tourist attraction in the region could disappear permanently. The minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, says contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing.

“Among the signs of more snow is the decrease in temperatures in areas surrounding the mountain, heavy rainfall this year and increased precipitation and spring water flow on the slopes of the mountain,” she pointed out. The minister toured the mountain last week as part of activities to mark the African Travel Association’s annual meeting held in Arusha. She said reports that the ice caps at the 5,895 metres high mountain would disappear in the next 20 years were overblown because there were signs that the snow cover had increased in recent years.

The minister’s remarks contradicted those of her predecessor, Prof Jumanne Maghembe. He was speaking at a meeting of wildlife scientists last December.Now the minister for Education and Vocational Training, Prof Maghembe quoted data from scientists indicating that the ice cap on Mt Kilimanjaro has dropped by over 80 per cent in the last 100 years. He warned that the snow on Mt Kilimanjaro, one of the leading tourist attractions in the country, could disappear in the next 20 years at the current melting rate.In 2002, Ms Zakhia Meghji, then minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, also rejected reports of fast depreciation of the snow on Mt Kilimanjaro.She said no conclusive data had been arrived at by scientists on the matter. At a meeting of natural resource experts, she said the amount of snow cover fluctuated depending on seasons and cycles of drought in the eastern Africa region. See full story here.

Anthony Watts posted a story on this in February with a time series of pictures including this one from 2008.

Also in this Fox News story in 2007, Brit Hume reported “Al Gore has made the disappearing snows of Mount Kilimanjaro a cornerstone of his crusade against global warming. In his film “An Inconvenient Truth” for example, he says: “Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” But now researchers from the U.S. and Austria say global warming isn’t the cause, and the fluctuations are nothing new. American Science magazine reports most of the current snow retreat occurred before 1953 - nearly two decades before any conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming was available. One of the scientists writes: “It is certainly possible that the icecap has come and gone many times over hundreds of thousands of years.”

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. This included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature rise.

Founding director of the UN Environment Programme Maurice Strong once analyzed global environmental challenges as follows: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” “Industrial civilization” has been pumping additional carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere and adding to the greenhouse effect, whereby carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor combine to trap sunrays bouncing off the earth’s surface, keeping the earth at a temperature conducive to supporting life. What ultimate benefit the collapse of industrial civilization could bring at a time when - as Oxford University economist Paul Collier put it in his award-winning book The Bottom Billion - around four billion people are being lifted out of poverty, remains unclear.

On 10 May 2007, UN special climate envoy Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland declared the climate debate “over,” adding that “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.” Questions about the “consensus” are mounting, however, as are apparently growing numbers of scientists who dispute the notion that “the science is settled.” Just two weeks ago, Dr Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine told the National Press Club in Washington DC that more than 31,000 scientists had signed the so-called Oregon Petition rejecting the IPCC line. Moreover, some of those included on the IPCC’s list have also raised objections. On 12 December 2007, the US Senate released a report from more than 400 scientists, many of whose names were attached to the IPCC report without - they claim - their permission. In the report, the scientists expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Read more here.

Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest oil-and-gas company, came out swinging Wednesday against the environmental movement, arguing the science of climate change is far from settled and that his company views it as its “corporate social responsibility” to continue to supply the world with fossil fuels.

Speaking to reporters after the annual meeting of shareholders, at which much-publicized proposals by the Rockefeller family calling for new investment in renewable energy received little support, Mr. Tillerson also said he expects little delay in the $8-billion Kearl oilsands project in Alberta, after a court challenge by environmental organizations this month resulted in the withdrawal of a key federal permit, halting important work."I am optimistic that the permit will be restored and we’ll be able to get back on track with very little loss to the schedule,” he said. “My understanding is that the project ... has been given a very high priority by the government of Canada and is moving along at a fairly rapid pace.” Exxon Mobil owns Kearl with its Canadian affiliate, Imperial Oil Ltd.  Mr. Tillerson said he is encouraged by efforts to move forward the $16.2-billion Mackenzie Gas Project in Canada’s Arctic. Those involved are still investigating ways it can be structured to better manage upfront risk, he said.

Avoiding the political correctness that many oil executives are now showing on global warming, Mr. Tillerson called for a continuation of the debate, rather than acceptance that it is occurring, with the potential consequence that governments will implement policies that put world economies at risk.

“My view is that this is so extraordinarily important to people the world over, that to not have a debate on it is irresponsible,” he said. “To suggest that we know everything we need to know about these issues is irresponsible. “And I will take all the criticism that comes with it. Anybody that tells you that they got this figured out is not being truthful. There are too many complexities around climate science for anybody to fully understand all of the causes and effects and consequences of what you may chose to do to attempt to affect that. We have to let scientists to continue their investigative work, unencumbered by political influences. This is too important to be cute with it.”

Mr. Tillerson said Exxon Mobil, despite its reputation as a staunch climate change denier, is in fact close to the issue as the only oil company that is a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Read more here.

Icecap Note: A new Gallup poll found the majority of 57% to 41% of Americans support drilling in US coastal and wilderness areas, which are now off limits unlike some in Congress, most Americans don’t blame Big Oil.  Despite recent high-profile congressional hearings with oil company executives, the percentage of Americans blaming the oil companies for skyrocketing gas prices fell from 34% to 20%. 

Tomorrow, May 24, the G-8 environment ministers will be in Japan to commence their annual meeting. Back in London, though, the world’s oldest science academy, the Royal Society of London, recently has become a vocal advocate of climate alarmism. RS fellows have included Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin.

But, under the previous leadership of Lord Robert May, the Society seems to have taken a wrong turn. They even tried to enlist other science academies into joining them in an alarmist manifesto. However, the U.S. National Academy, though sharing some of these views, decided not to sign up, and the Russian Academy of Sciences has taken an opposing position. In June 2007, the Royal Society published a pamphlet, titled “Climate Change Controversies: a simple guide,” designed to undermine the scientific case of climate skeptics. They presented what they called “misleading arguments” on global warming and then tried to shoot them down.

In countering the RS pamphlet, I have prepared a response that is being published tomorrow by the London-based Centre for Policy Studies under the title “Not so simple? A scientific response to the Royal Society’s paper.” Throughout, the Royal Society has relied heavily on the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which used to be regarded as a reliable source of scientific information. The RS thus adopts the IPCC claim that current warming is almost certainly anthropogenic (human-caused) but presents no independent evidence to support such a claim.

In its pamphlet, the Royal Society purports to speak on behalf of a consensus of scientists. But no such consensus exists. Direct polling of climate scientists has shown that about 30% are “skeptical” of anthropogenic global warming. More than 31,000 American scientists recently signed the Oregon Petition, which expresses doubt about the major conclusions of the IPCC, and opposes the drastic mitigation demands of the Kyoto Protocol and the proposed “cap-and-trade” legislation of the U.S. Congress. Read more here.

Now, is it not time for the nation’s energy policy to be in the hands of rational adults rather than wishful thinkers? The wishful crowd believes conservation and alternative energy sources will be our salvation. There is no doubt that both are indispensable to our future, but they are not the panacea some would have us believe. The reality is that for the immediate future, any alternative sources of energy will be more expensive for us to use. Reliance on them alone will make the United States less competitive in the world market because of their higher cost. Our economy will suffer, jobs will be lost. Let’s face up to the truth: Our economic well-being and standard of living long into the future will be dependent upon fossil fuels.

We are now looking at regular gasoline reaching $4 per gallon this summer. This past winter, the price for a gallon of home heating oil was higher than premium gasoline. The situation will only get worse with each succeeding year because we are not making the needed effort to go get more oil. Within the last few weeks, it has been announced that there is a newly discovered deposit of oil in North Dakota, extending into Canada. The Bakken Formation, by some reports, could contain as much as 4 billion barrels of oil, the largest deposit in the U.S. outside of Alaska. Yet, we hear very little about it in the mainstream media. My guess is, the wishful thinkers don’t want to go get it, and would rather the public not even know about it.

Then of course, there’s the sad tale of the oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. “No, no, no,” say the wishful crowd. That wilderness is much too “pristine” to allow any exploration or drilling for oil, it must be preserved at all costs. Must one of the costs be our economy? Must another be that we huddle together for warmth in the dark? A few days ago, U.S. Sen. Schumer of New York dismissed any thought of drilling for oil in ANWR. He said it would not solve our current problems, because it would take 10 years before we saw any oil from that source. I seem to remember that when oil was first discovered there, about 13-14 years ago, the same argument was made. Isn’t it obvious that if we had gone after the oil then, we would have it now? Do you think it is a good idea for us to begin to plan and act for the future instead of just living for the present moment?
Read more of this common sense letter here.