Larsen Financial is a full-service investment center that has all the products and services of the major brokerages, but without the high costs.

Learn more.

No Scientific “Consensus” on Global Warming

  • No Scientific “Consensus” on Global Warming

  • 15 April 2007 by 0 Comments

No Scientific “Consensus” on Global Warming
By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/15/07

Recently Al Gore and many others have proclaimed that the issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is settled. Yet Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, has responded, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.”

Far from there being a preponderance of evidence in support of human caused global warming, the science is lacking a critical step in the scientific process: a proven incontrovertible causal relationship validating their hypothesis with data.

Somehow the notion of “consensus” of scientists has crept into the scientific method on this issue. Science isn’t up for a vote: it’s either science, hence provable through scientific process, or it is opinion. What was the consensus when Galileo and Einstein made their discoveries? In the early 1900’s 95% of “scientists” believed in eugenics. Doesn’t seem to me that consensus determines what science is. Incontrovertible evidence does, and that is sorely lacking on AGW.

In 2001, over 17,000 scientists signed a petition asking the United States government to not agree to the Kyoto treaty. These scientists and researchers declared in their collective statement: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

For evidentiary purposes, let’s review what a few of these experts have stated. London’s Emeritus Professor of Biogeography Philip Stott reminds us, “It’s (AGW) nonsense, and very dangerous. What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes, with or without man.”

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, reminds us that, “A 1997 survey of U.S . state climatologists found that 90 percent agreed with the statement that ‘scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time.’ The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.”

He continues, “One of the extraterrestrial factors frequently overlooked in global warming science is the sun itself; although it was thought at one time to be a ‘constant star,’ the sun in fact has periods of variability that impact the earth’s climate. Satellite and high-altitude weather balloon observations show that — contrary to what has been widely reported — the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat as a result of higher CO2 concentrations. The earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the sun.”

Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and America’s top hurricane forecaster, says of Al Gore and his movie, he’s “a gross alarmist. He’s one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential. Global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”

Claude Allegre, geophysicist at the Institute of Geophysics in Paris says, “Various parameters appear more important than CO2, like fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”

Chris de Freitas, Professor of Geology and Environmental Science in Auckland has said, “There is evidence of global warming, but it is not confirmed that either natural or manmade CO2 is causing it.”

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma says, “There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. It would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.”

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences says, “CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.”

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist and professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa says, “We know that the sun was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle. Average global temperatures have dropped slightly over the past seven years.”

There are thousands of noted scientists who fail to buy in to the “consensus” view of AGW. Those who claim the science is settled are either ideologues embracing AGW as their new pantheistic “religion” or gullible. It always makes sense to conserve resources and be wise stewards over the earth, but to shape governmental policy based on the pseudo-science of AGW would be foolish and perilously premature.

Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at

About the

More than anything, I want my readers to think. We're told what to think by the education establishment, which is then parroted by politicians from the left, and then reinforced by the mainstream media. Steeped in classical liberalism, my ideological roots are based in the Constitution and our founding documents. Armed with facts, data, and correct principles, today's conservatives can see through the liberal haze and bring clarity to any political discussion.

Related Posts