The Decline of Global Warming: How Baseless Belief Is Losing Ground to Objective Science

“The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows . . . the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts.  With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.”  —Fifteen Top Climate Experts, in Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment—2014


Trump Meets with Climate Expert William Happer

While it is true that, as President-Elect, Donald Trump met with Al Gore, in December of 2016, on the topic of global warming, it is also true that, on January 13, 2017, Trump also met with Princeton’s Dr. William Happer.  Happer, a top climate scientist, has famously said, “The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing CO2 will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.”  Happer has earned the right to make such pronouncements, since he is one of the leading experts in climate science and is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University.  Dr. Happer has published over 200 peer-reviewed papers in science journals and has also served as Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where he supervised the DOE’s work with regard to climate change.

What exactly was said between Trump and Happer is unknown.  But we do know the content of Dr. Happer’s statements to the Congressional Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, on May 20, 2010 when Happer stated that “CO2 is not a ureal pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning.”  According to Happer, “[f]or many decades, the citizens of the USA and of much of the world have been flooded with the message that CO2 is ‘carbon pollution.’  We are supposed to trust our government and selfless [nongovernmental organizations] for instructions on how to save the planet.  Much of the message is false, but its purveyors control key positions in the media, in the government, in scientific societies, in charitable foundations, etc.  This makes it difficult to get out the truth that climate science is far from ‘settled.’”


Dr. Happer’s Comments

Trending: Evidence of the Silicon Valley Cult

Here are three of Dr. Happer’s more interesting statements, from his 2010 testimony before Congress, follow:

1)       “Global-warming alarmists have tried to silence any who question the party line of impending climate apocalypse.  We need to establish a Team B of competent scientists, charged with questioning the party line.  The DoD and the CIA do this, there was a devil’s advocate (promotor fidei) for [arguing against] sainthood, why not the same for climate change?”

2)       “Most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds.  To get the frightening global warming scenarios that are bandied about, the added CO2 must substantially increase water’s contribution to warming.  The jargon is “positive feedback” from water vapor and clouds.  With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water.  In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative.”

3)       “The current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the Little Ice Age, long before there was appreciable burning of fossil fuel.  There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age.  These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels.  It is hard for many scientists to understand why some significant fraction of the current warming might not also be due to similar natural causes.  Over the past ten years there has been no statistically global warming.  This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC computer models.  The existence of large climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control the climate.”


Happer Is in Line with Other Scientists

Dr. Happer’s remarks are in line with other climate experts who are skeptical of the claims of warmists, fifteen of whom are quoted jointly in a report called Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment—2014:

“The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences [rather than observable/measurable science] that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels [rather than research questions asking if these hypotheses are true].  It is therefore claimed as self-evident [rather than being proven] that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so.”


Exposing Climatological Corruption: The Climategate Scandal

Half a year before Dr. Happer’s testimony to Congress, there occurred a scandal of major proportions at the University of East Anglia.  The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Email Controversy began, in November 2009, due to a hacking attack on a university server.  The hacker copied thousands of CRU email messages and computer files and shared them throughout the Internet just weeks ahead of the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change.

Early reporting of the scandal appeared in the popular column of James Delingpole, who popularized the term “Climategate” in reference to the scandal, since it had become obvious from the leaked emails and files that scientists had conspiratorially fudged global warming data in their efforts to make their climate-research data say what political leaders wanted it to say; they did this in order to reward warmist politicians in order to procure more grant money from those selfsame politicians in the future.

Political apologists tried to explain the scandal away by framing the data manipulation as merely hypothetical discussions among scientists.  But those who read the leaked documents for themselves could easily see through the smokescreen.  And, according to Google, only a week after James Delingpole coined the term “Climategate,” that very term had already appeared across the Internet more than nine million times.

As a result of Climategate, few rational people believe in global warming anymore.  Only corrupt media outlets of the political establishment maintain that most people still believe in the warmist hoax.  (Establishment polling has come to be known as fraudulent in its methodology, with the aim of providing political cover to politicians who need to claim backing of the public for their questionable agendas; the Trump electoral win of 2016 has illustrated the depth of this corruption, since the RealClearPolitics average of establishment media polls predicted—only two days prior to the election—that Clinton had a 95% chance for an electoral win.

In reality, few Americans even batted an eyelash when Donald Trump, during the presidential campaign of 2016, famously tweeted, “Any and all weather events are used by the GLOBAL WARMING HOAXSTERS to justify higher taxes to save our planet!  They don’t believe it $$$$!”  Establishment corruption had already been perceived by the majority of Americans as having infiltrated almost everything, from the way scientific research was being conducted to the way political polling was being carried out; and all of it was being done according to methods that might help corrupt candidates to appear more popular—and therefore justified in their political positions.


Following the Money

Many scientists and politicians crawled out of the woodwork to defend global warming, in the wake of Climategate, in order to cast doubt on the notion of East Anglia’s Climategate malfeasance, because—given the serious money spent on climate research by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—trillions of dollars in corrupt spending were now at stake.  And, of course, with so much to lose, Establishment bullies appeared on the scene, rearing their ugly heads out of frustration with being challenged by skeptics of all the pseudoscience seeking explanations:

“Among the leaked emails disclosed last week were an alleged note from Professor Phil Jones, 57, the director of the CRU and a leading target of climate change sceptics, to an American colleague describing the death of a sceptic as ‘cheering news’; and a suggestion from Prof Jones that a ‘trick’ is used to ‘hide the decline’ in temperature.  They even include threats of violence.  One American academic wrote to Prof Jones: ‘Next time I see Pat Michaels [a climate sceptic] at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.  Very tempted.’”

Of course, bullying and threats of violence against skeptics would only seem to indicate that the evidence is indeed corrupt; if the data were self-proving, then why would there be a need to threaten others with violence?  Would it not be more fruitful to verify the truth by releasing the uncorrupted data sets which had been collected initially?  It is fear that is the basis for such violent threats and ill wishes as we find in the Climategate emails, perhaps the fear of fraudulent science being exposed.


Not Even the Weather Channel Believes in Warmism

In an open letter to the UCLA Hammer Forum, Weather Channel Founder John Coleman wrote the following:

“There is no significant man-made global warming at this time. . . .  Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant ‘greenhouse’ gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.  There has been no warming in over 18 years.  [And] 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences.  Yet at your October 23 Hammer Forum on Climate Change you have scheduled as your only speakers two people who continue to present . . . failed science. . . .  The polar ice is increasing, not melting away.  Polar Bears are increasing in number. . . .  There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). . . .  It has become a political and environmental agenda item, but the science is not valid. . . .”


Nobel Prize-Winner Ivar Giaever’s Speech to Fellow Laureates

Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever’s half-hour speech from a meeting of Nobel laureates, on July 1, 2015, is a brilliant lecture on global warming, based upon scientific data—as well as the lack thereof.  “Global warming really has become a new religion,” says Giaever, “because you cannot discuss it. . . .  It is like the Catholic Church.”

Giaever continues, asking:

“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree?  I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the Emperor’s new clothes.  How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? . . .  For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm—but . . . for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years.  So there is no unusual rise in sea level. . . .  You don’t have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says. . . .”

Another question Giaever poses is this: “Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills, rather than helping people? . . .  Windmills cost money.  Cheap energy is what made us so rich [and able to help people] and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.  People say oil companies are the big bad people.  I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies.  General Electric makes windmills.  They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it.  But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend