Science is not about consensus; it’s about observable facts

To the Editor:

You’d never know it by watching the mainstream media, or by listening to Alberta’s government, but the truth is that there are scientists and academics all over the world who refute much of what’s being said by climate alarmists about a pending disaster brought on by the use of fossil fuel.
Freeman Dyson is a Princeton-based physicist considered by many to be one of the more brilliant men on the planet. He has been referred to as Einstein’s successor. Dyson said: “The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is nonsense.” He says the computer models that alarmists base their fears upon have already proven themselves unreliable, therefore “it makes very little sense to believe the output.”
Ivar Giaever, a physicist with a Nobel Prize, says climate alarmism is pseudoscience. He compares the actions of global warming alarmists to a very early era of the Catholic church, back when it was strictly forbidden to even ask a question. In his own words, Giaever says:
“Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important; only whether they are correct is important. The facts are that in the last 100 years… temperatures [have] gone up 0.8 degrees C and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can [we] say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, [have] better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another 0.8 degrees C we are going to die, I guess.”
Princeton scientist William Happer, former director of the U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Science, agrees with Giaever. Happer pointedly says that the supposed horrors alarmists attribute to increased carbon dioxide is “pure belief disguised as science.”
Happer says that the optimum level for CO2 on the planet is roughly 2½ times what it is now, pointing to the fact that past CO2 levels have been as much as ten times higher than they are today. Rather than being pollution, he says, CO2 is plant food, which is why professional greenhouses add vast quantities of it to their nurseries.
Solar physicist Dr. Pål Brekke, a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre, says: “Anyone claiming the debate on global warming is over and the conclusions firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
Climate alarmists seeking carbon taxes and political action hurl accusations of “denial” at unconvinced scientists or anyone else who dares question their orthodoxy. They also cite fanciful claims about a supposed scientific consensus on global warming. Yet even in making such rash claims, they ignore the fact that real science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the language of politics. Real science speaks the language of evidence and observable facts.
The reality is that anytime we hear a climate alarmist or politician throw the word “denier” at someone, what we’re actually seeing is an attempt to avoid debate. Alarmists claim that climate science is settled, yet they avoid discussing the hard reasons and evidence.
For these climate alarmists and their ideological allies, accusing someone of “denial” is their way of telling thoughtful people—including world-class academics and scientists—to shut up.

Kevin Avram
Director of Grassroots Alberta,
Calgary, AB

Share this post