The coffee-spitting alarmists and censorial establishment players have collectively thrown their arms up in outrage at the slew of new scientific papers calling into question their precious anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Papers such as Evidence of Urban Blending in Homogenized Temperature Records and Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Trends Since 1850 have boldly gone where few modern climate papers have gone before — they’ve used objective scientific methodology, which for time immemorial has proven the nails in the coffin lids of false narratives.
Since publication, the authors of these studies have endured attack after attack by “activist scientists” who are “aggressively conducting an orchestrated disinformation campaign to discredit the papers and the scientific reputation of the authors,” the researchers told The Epoch Times.
From parroted insults on social media to desperate FOIA requests from profoundly unprofessional journal editors and federal scientists, the controversy is getting heated.
Several scientists have expressed shock at the tactics used against those whose latest research casts doubts on the official climate narrative. Shocked but not suprised, said William Happer, Princeton professor emeritus of physics: “Of course the climate cult will be dismissive of any information–no matter how scientifically correct–that is politically incorrect,” he said.
These papers are being challenged so vehemently because they are guilty of the deadliest of deadly sins: They are fueling public skepticism about the IPCC’s increasingly science and fact-ignoring scare stories which effectively allude to ‘end of the world’.
Top of the list of IPCC defenders is atmospheric science professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.
Fresh from labeling climate deniers “HORRIBLE people … typically bigoted, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic…”, Mann was back on X throwing names at the decorated authors of these latest papers (which included a prof. emeritus at both Princeton and MIT for crikey-sake), calling them “a group of climate denier [clown emoji]”.
Mr. Mann, infamous in the scientific community for his now widely ridiculed ‘hockey stick’ graph, which purports to show massive man-made warming, also described the editor of the journal Climate as a “denier clown.”
Mann’s views have, for decades, been protected from proper scientific (and decency) scrutiny because they fall safely within the bounds of what is expected from a mainstream scientist. Mann plays by the rules and has seemingly been paid handsomely for it (public net worth ‘$5 million’ from his job as a ‘University Teacher’).
Attacks are also raining in from Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who is demanding, via a FOIA request, access to all of the emails between the relevant scientists (namely those centered around Dr. Ned Nikolov).
This seems a bit rich. Schmidt has refused to debate these scientists’ valid claims for decades now. The man literally stood up and walked off the John Stossel set when it was former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer’s turn to speak:
Schmidt also recently mocked Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, posting on X that there was “mo[o]re BS going around” before posting a highly edited version of Mr. Moore’s post.
“The latest contrarian crowd pleaser from Soon et al (2023) is just the latest repetition of the old ‘it was the sun wot done it’ trope that Willie Soon and his colleagues have been pushing for decades,” elaborated Schmidt in a blog post.
The response from the ‘contrarian’ scientific community –an ever-growing community– has been strong.
The blog post by Schmidt “is dismissive in an insubstantive way,” said climatologist Judith Curry.
“The response by Schmidt, Mann, and others, particularly with regard to the FOIA request regarding editorial discussions on this paper, reflects their ongoing attempts to control the scientific as well as public dialogue on climate change,” she told The Epoch Times. “In my opinion, their behavior not only reflects poorly on them but is damaging to climate science.”
Curry, author of “Climate Uncertainty and Risk,” said the new paper raises “an important issue that is swept under the rug by the IPCC and many climate scientists.” In particular, it has major implications for how 20th-century climate records are interpreted.
“Further, the issue of the urban heat island effect on global land temperatures remains unresolved, which is also highlighted in the Soon et al. paper,” she said, calling it “a useful contribution to the climate science literature.”
Dr. Willie Soon, the main author of the paper and a principal with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), explained that the new papers by CERES scientists are a major threat to powerful vested interests.
“For over three decades, the claims and conclusions by U.N. IPCC reports reigned supreme, unquestioned and unchallenged,” said Soon, who former solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
“Our latest series of three published papers show that those claims are scientifically empty. Our results appear to rock the weak foundation of IPCC, and this must be the reason why you are seeing such instantaneous rejection and outright complaining by activists like Schmidt and Mann.”
Dr. Soon, along with some of the other scientists involved in the new papers, published another groundbreaking study in 2021 showing that solar activity could explain all observed warming.
Unusually, that paper has been downloaded more than 55,000 times since publication: “The high level of attention to this paper by people hungry for truth might be the real threats that Schmidt and Mann are worrying about,” said Soon.
Dr. Happer noted that the newest paper by Dr. Soon, which wasn’t involved with, is indeed significant, and bring to the attention of the world two important and valid points: There are “huge uncertainties” surrounding how much warming there has been since 1850 and how much of that might be due to human activities, he said.
“The paper presents very strong evidence that a warming bias is built into the records from urban areas,” added Happer. “This extra warming of urban versus rural areas is not caused by increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It is caused by humans, but it cannot be reversed by ruinous net-zero policies.”
Dr. William Happer, who believes that human CO2 emissions are responsible for “a relatively small contribution” to the “modest warming” that has been observed, agreed with the paper’s conclusion that available data isn’t good enough to determine how significant the various factors, such as volcanoes, solar irradiance, and greenhouse gas emissions, are to the warming.