{"id":368577,"date":"2025-03-04T16:57:02","date_gmt":"2025-03-04T15:57:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368577"},"modified":"2025-03-04T16:57:05","modified_gmt":"2025-03-04T15:57:05","slug":"climate-scare-based-on-lies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368577","title":{"rendered":"Climate Scare Based on\u00a0Lies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

ink to video: Prof. William Happer \u2013 Climate Scare Is Based on Lies<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transcript in italics with my bolds and added images (HS is interviewer Hannes Sarv, WH is William Happer)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> If you read about climate in the newspapers or some talk about climate on television, it will be very, very far from the truth.  We\u2019re told that climate change is a direct consequence of human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.  Year after year, you are seeing the dramatic reality of a boiling planet.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And for scientists, it is unequivocal. Humans are to blame, we\u2019re led to believe the climate is boiling. And the accumulated amount is now trapping as much extra heat as would be released by 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding. That\u2019s what\u2019s boiling the oceans.\u00a0\u00a0Which will have disastrous effects.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

But is there really a scientific consensus on man-made climate change? Over a thousand scientists dispute the so-called climate crisis. Many of them are high-ranking experts in their fields. Among them, Dr. William Happer, a respected physicist with decades of groundbreaking research, an emeritus professor at Princeton University, and a leading expert in atomic and molecular physics.  He has deep expertise in the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in climate change.  Dr.  Happer argues that the role of human activity and CO2 in global warming is based on flawed science and misinterpretations.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cYou know, it\u2019s dangerous to make policy on the basis of lies.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In this interview, we\u2019ll explore the evidence he believes has been overlooked and why it could transform our understanding of climate change.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>\u00a0As we can see, Professor, you are still working daily in your university office. So, what is it? Are you consulting younger colleagues or still involved in some research projects?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, yes, I try to stay busy and I\u2019m working now with a former student from Canada who\u2019s a professor there now, William van Wijngaarden.  And we\u2019re working now on how water vapor and clouds affect the Earth\u2019s climate, the radiation transfer details of those.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>So still very much involved in climate science.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, you know, climate<\/strong> is very important. It\u2019s always been important to humanity.<\/strong> It\u2019s not going to change. I think it\u2019s been having hard times the last 50 years<\/strong> because of this manic<\/strong> focus on demonization of greenhouse gases, which have some effect on climate but not very much.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>\u00a0We\u2019re going to absolutely get to that. But I wanted to start from actually, I was listening to\u00a0one of your speeches<\/strong>\u00a0and presentations you held back\u00a0in 2023<\/strong>\u00a0at the Institute of Public Affairs. And what really, I think resonated with me was that\u00a0you started from the notion that freedom is important.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>And every generation has their own struggle for freedom and freedom is not free. So, I actually wanted to start by asking you what is the state,\u00a0the current state of freedom in your opinion in the world today?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> I think it\u2019s really true that every generation has to struggle to maintain freedom, you know, because every generation has lots of people who don\u2019t like freedom<\/strong>, you know. They would like to be little dictators, you know, and that\u2019s always been true if you read history. And it\u2019s not going to change.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so, I think it\u2019s important that we educate our children to recognize that\u00a0humans are imperfect<\/strong>\u00a0and there will\u00a0always be attempts to get dictatorial control over society<\/strong>. And, you know, our\u00a0founding fathers in America<\/strong>\u00a0represented recognize that. They just assumed that their fellow Americans would be not very perfect people, you know, with lots of flawed people,\u00a0and they\u00a0tried to design a system of government that would work even with flawed people.<\/strong>\u00a0Some German philosophers put it right, you know, out of the crooked timber of mankind, no straight thing was ever made. So that\u2019s the problem that we will always face.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> What about academic freedom in today\u2019s world?<\/strong> I\u2019m not only speaking about climate science, but in general.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, you know, I think academia<\/strong> has always had a problem with groupthink<\/strong>, you know, because you\u2019re typically all together in one small community, and your children and wives interact with each other. And so the temptations, the pressures to all think the same are very great.<\/strong> You know, if you don\u2019t think the same, your kids suffer, your wife suffers, and that\u2019s nothing new. It\u2019s always been like that. You know, there\u2019s a famous\u2026 American play, Who\u2019s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? But it\u2019s about this topic and it goes back<\/strong> many, many decades, you know, long before the current woke problems<\/strong> that we\u2019re having in America.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS: <\/strong> So as we all know currently, there is a new administration in the United States.<\/strong> So what will happen<\/strong> now? Will the situation, in your opinion, improve or is it just, you know, the challenges are going to remain?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, you know, we\u2019ve just elected a new president, and\u00a0he\u2019s very vigorous and has lots of ideas,<\/strong>\u00a0and I think that\u2019s a good thing. We\u2019ll see how successful he is. But, you know, our society and our government is designed to be cumbersome and unwieldy. That\u2019s to prevent crazy things from happening too quickly.\u00a0\u00a0And so, the president will have to deal with that. And\u00a0if the Americans support him, if the Congress supports him, he\u2019ll be successful.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Let\u2019s move to climate science<\/strong>. Is there any honest discussion left?<\/strong> It has become so political, in my opinion, that it is really hard to have an open, a normal discussion about it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, I think if you go to a seminar,<\/strong> for example, at Princeton on climate, It\u2019s often pretty good science. It\u2019s not alarmist.<\/strong> But this is professors and students talking to each other. The further you get away from the actual research, the more alarmist and crazy it becomes.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

So, if you read about\u00a0climate in the newspapers<\/strong>\u00a0or<\/strong>\u00a0listen to some talk about climate\u00a0on television, it will be very, very far from the truth.<\/strong>\u00a0And it won\u2019t be the same thing that the professors at universities normally are talking about. But that said, you know,\u00a0I think there\u2019s been a lot of corruption because of all of the money available. You know, there are\u00a0huge funds if you do research that supports<\/strong>\u00a0the idea that there is a\u00a0climate emergency which requires lots of government intervention.<\/strong>\u00a0And if you don\u2019t do that, you\u2019re less likely to be funded, you know,\u00a0you can\u2019t pay your graduate students. So, it\u2019s a bad situation. It\u2019s been very corrupting to this branch of science.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Exactly how long has it been going on, this kind of situation?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH: Well, I think it really got started in the early 90s.<\/strong> I was in Washington at the time as a government bureaucrat, and I could see it getting started. It was being pushed by Senator Al Gore and his allies.<\/strong> There were, at that time, still lots of honest scientists<\/strong> in academia who didn\u2019t go along with all of the alarmism, but they\u2019ve gradually died off<\/strong> and they\u2019ve been replaced by younger people<\/strong> who\u2019ve never known anything except, you know, pleasing your government sponsor with the politically correct research results that they expect.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> So basically they are not in a position, if they want to achieve anything in academia or make a career for themselves, they are kind of unable to stay honest even?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> They try to be honest, but it\u2019s very difficult because you have to plan to educate your children. You have to maintain your family, and so that means you need money. And the only way to get money is to agree to this alarmist meme<\/strong> that has dominated climate scientists now for several decades.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Of course it affects climate research. So what is the current state, let\u2019s say, the current state of climate research?<\/strong> What\u2019s the quality of it in your opinion?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, I think many<\/strong> of the observational programs in climate science are very good.<\/strong> For example, satellite measurements of Earth\u2019s properties, radiation, cloudiness, temperatures, and ground-based observations. They\u2019re often very high-quality work, very useful,<\/strong> and we\u2019re lucky to have them. There are good programs in both Europe and the United States and Japan, and China is becoming quite important nowadays, too.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I think where there\u2019s still\u00a0huge problems is in computer modeling.<\/strong>\u00a0I don\u2019t think most computer models mean anything. It\u2019s a complete waste of money, but that\u2019s what\u2019s driving the public perception. So the public is unable to look at model results, which are not alarming at all.\u00a0\u00a0But instead what they see is graphic displays from computer computations which are not tied into observations. So I think the money that\u2019s been spent on computers, and lots of it has been spent, has been mostly wasted.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>\u00a0Let me just understand it correctly because I\u2019ve come to understand that these computer models are something that our\u00a0current debate or the climate alarm is all based on<\/strong>:\u00a0 That there\u2019s going to be a\u00a0warming of how many degrees and then the earth is going to be uninhabitable.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0And you\u2019re saying that those models are not things that something like that should be based on.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> The Earth is always either warming or cooling<\/strong>. It\u2019s a rare time when it\u2019s got stable temperature. We\u2019re in a warming phase now. But most of the warming is probably a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age when it was much, much colder all over the world. And it began to warm up in the early 1800s.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it continued to warm, not very fast. No one knows how long this will last. If you look over the last 10,000 years, since the end of the last glacial period, there have been many warmings and coolings similar to the one that we\u2019re in now.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And I think understanding that is quite important, but that understanding has been put back by many, many years because of the sort of crazed focus on greenhouse gases. It\u2019s pretty clear that greenhouse gases don\u2019t have very much to do with these warmings<\/strong>. Nobody was burning fossil fuels in the year 1200-1300 when the poor Greenlanders were frozen out.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They did some pretty good farming in the southern parts of Greenland in the year 1000, the year 1100. Before long, it became just too cold to continue to do that. The same thing happened in parts of my ancestral country of Scotland. You know, you used to be able to farm the uplands of Scotland, which you can\u2019t farm now, it\u2019s too cold. But they\u2019re warming up at some point, maybe you can farm them again. So anyway, the climate is just famous for being unstable.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Let\u2019s talk about those greenhouse gases. Mainly climate change today in mainstream media or by those alarmist politicians, for example, is attributed to carbon dioxide. If someone has not looked into it, this gas might seem to have something even poisonous. What is carbon dioxide? Do we need it?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, first of all, carbon dioxide is at the basis of life on Earth.\u00a0We live because plants are able to chemically transform carbon dioxide and water into sugar<\/strong>. And a\u00a0byproduct<\/strong>\u00a0is the\u00a0oxygen<\/strong>\u00a0that we breathe. And so we should all be very grateful that we have carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.\u00a0\u00a0You know, life would die without carbon dioxide. If you look over the history of\u2026 Life on Earth, carbon dioxide has never been very stable in the atmosphere. There have been times in the past when it\u2019s been much, much higher than today. Life flourished with five times more carbon dioxide than we have today.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And there have been times when it\u2019s been much lower, one-half, one-third, and those were actually quite unpleasant times for life. They were the\u00a0depths of the last ice ages when carbon dioxide levels dropped to below 200 parts per million<\/strong>, quite low compared to today. We\u2019re at around 400.\u00a0\u00a0So at the depth of the last ice age, it was about half what it is today. In some of the more verdant periods of geological history, it\u2019s been four times, five times what it is today. So the climate is not terribly sensitive to carbon dioxide. It has some sensitivity to it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

More carbon dioxide will make it a little bit warmer. But\u00a0carbon dioxide is heavily saturated<\/strong>, to use a technical term. You know, there\u2019s so much in the atmosphere today that if you, for example, could double carbon dioxide, that\u2019s\u00a0100% increase<\/strong>, you would only decrease the cooling radiation to space by 1%.\u00a0\u00a0So 100% change in carbon dioxide only makes a 1% change in flux. And that\u2019s because of the saturation that I mentioned. And there\u2019s not much you can debate about that. It\u2019s very, very basic physics. It\u2019s the same physics that produces the dark lines of the sun and the stars. So it\u2019s quite well understood.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And so the question is, what temperature change will a 1% change of radiation to space cause? You know, that\u2019s radiation flux, not temperature. And the answer is it will cause an even smaller percentage change of temperature. There\u2019s really\u00a0no threat from increasing carbon dioxide or any of the other more minor greenhouse gases<\/strong>\u00a0like methane or nitrous oxide\u00a0or artificial gases like\u00a0anesthetic gases. It\u2019s all a made-up scare story.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Where did this scare story come from? Why this fixation on greenhouse gases? If you explain it this way, it seems a bit even absurd to be fixated on these gases all the time.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, you know, I\u2019m really good with instruments and differential equations, but I\u2019m not so good at people\u2019s motives. And so I don\u2019t really understand myself exactly how this has happened. I think\u2026 There are various motives<\/strong>, some<\/strong> of them fundamentally good<\/strong>. For example, one of the motives has been it\u2019s hard to keep people from fighting with each other, so if we could have a common enemy like a danger to the climate<\/strong>, we could all join forces and defeat climate change, and then we wouldn\u2019t be killing each other off.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So there\u2019s nothing wrong with a motive like that, except that you have to lie.
And so, you know, it\u2019s dangerous to make policy on the basis of lies.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So I don\u2019t know what drives it. It\u2019s a perfect storm of different motives. Lust for power, good motives, lust for peace. All for that. Lust for money. But I\u2019m much more comfortable talking about<\/strong>, as I say, the physics<\/strong> of greenhouse gases and the physics of climate than what drives people.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Yeah, yeah. Well, you have said that this climate change or climate alarmism today is<\/strong>, what was it, you prefer scam<\/strong>, but you are willing to settle with a hoax<\/strong>, is it correct?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, this is not too serious, but you know, when someone says hoax, I think of hoax<\/strong> as, to some extent, a practical joke.<\/strong> There\u2019s a certain amount of humor in it. For example, the Piltdown Man<\/strong> was a famous hoax where some brilliant Englishman doctored up a I think it was a chimpanzee skull to make it look like a human skull. And this was not too serious, but lots of learned professors wrote papers about it, you know, and it was all nonsense. But this had no aim to make a lot of money, you know, or to gain power.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was simply, you know, a great practical joke. That\u2019s a hoax. A scam is different. A scam is where you are deceiving people to enrich yourself, to gain power,<\/strong> you know, and so I think that\u2019s a better description of what\u2019s happening with climate than a hoax. But it\u2019s a small detail, I don\u2019t mind calling it a hoax.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>\u00a0Basically, Professor, there is a\u00a0lot of money involved in climate change or climate alarmism.<\/strong>\u00a0Would it be that money is driving this as well or what is your take on that?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Yes, those are trillions of dollars they are projecting.<\/strong><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, I think it\u2019s really true that the\u00a0love of money has been the root of evil<\/strong>\u00a0as long as humanity has existed. And here we\u2019re talking about trillions of dollars. If you really went to net zero, the economic implications would just be enormous. People would have to lower their standard of living greatly. It would cause enormous damage to the environment. You cover the world with windmills and solar panels. So\u2026 And it\u2019s driven by money. Lots of people are making lots of money. So it\u2019s driven by money. It\u2019s driven by power.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

And then it\u2019s\u00a0driven by poor people<\/strong>\u00a0who fundamentally believe, you know,\u00a0and that they really have been\u00a0misled into thinking that there is an emergency.<\/strong>\u00a0And you have to be sympathetic to them, you know, who wouldn\u2019t want to save the world if the world was in danger? It is not really in danger, but many people are convinced that it\u2019s in danger. But, you know, there\u2019s this old saying,\u00a0the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and\u00a0we\u2019re on the road to hell with net zero.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes. Well, like you already mentioned, this crisis is often said to be linked with, for example, extreme weather events. But I don\u2019t know, is it even clear today that we have\u00a0more extreme weather events<\/strong>\u00a0because of the warming that is happening?<\/strong>\u00a0Or is it so?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, if you look at the data, there\u2019s\u00a0not the slightest evidence that there\u2019s more extreme weather<\/strong>\u00a0today than there was 50 years ago. Even the\u00a0IPCC<\/strong>, you know, the UN body does not claim that there is an increase in extreme weather. They say there\u2019s really no hard evidence for that. And in fact, the\u00a0evidence is that it\u2019s about the same as the weather has always been.<\/strong>\u00a0In my country, for example, the worst weather we had was back in the 1930s when we had the Dust Bowl and, you know\u2026 people migrating from Oklahoma to California, you know, it was a terrible time.\u00a0\u00a0We\u2019ve not had anything like that since.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>\u00a0Of course, always to talk about\u00a0floods<\/strong>, always to talk about\u00a0hurricanes<\/strong>. And as I understand as well, the IPCC is not actually in their scientific reports. They are not actually saying that there are more. But they are saying something, right? So the question here is, what do you think?\u00a0\u00a0You have probably looked into them a bit more than I am. So is it solid science what\u2019s in there? Or is it also motivated the\u00a0IPCC scientific reports, politically motivated, for example?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> You know, there\u2019s this saying in the communications business, if it bleeds, it leads.<\/strong> So if you\u2019ve got a newspaper or a television business, you have to look for disasters<\/strong> because that\u2019s what people pay attention to.<\/strong> And so part of the problem has been the mass media, which has to have emergencies, has to have extreme events.  And the fact is usually hidden that there\u2019s nothing unusual about an event. They try to deceive you into thinking that this has never happened.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example<\/strong>, just yesterday they had four or five inches of snow in Corpus Christi, Texas<\/strong>. That\u2019s a lot of snow for Corpus Christi. But, you know, if you look at the records of Corpus Christi, it\u2019s not unusual every 20, 30 years as it happens<\/strong>. It\u2019s been happening for thousands of years. But most people, you know, they\u2019re not even 20 or 30 years of age, and so they\u2019ve never seen this before. So it seems like the world is changing rapidly in front of their eyes, but it\u2019s not changing really at all.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes, they can look at it on the television, then it must be true when they are saying that it\u2019s because of climate change, right? So, this is the thing. One particular graph that is always talked about when climate is the issue is the famous\u00a0Michael Mann hockey stick.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
The first graph appeared in the IPCC 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR) credited to H.H.Lamb, first director of CRU-UEA. The second graph was featured in 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) the famous hockey stick credited to M. Mann.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong>\u00a0The graph is phony, and that\u2019s been demonstrated by many, many people. It\u2019s even different from the first IPCC graphs. It\u2019s a graph of temperature versus time since about the year 2000. you know, about the year zero, you know, from the time of Christ to today.\u00a0\u00a0And what it\u00a0shows<\/strong>\u00a0is\u00a0absolutely no change of temperature until the 20th century<\/strong>\u00a0when it shoots up like the blade of a hockey stick. So that\u2019s why it\u2019s called the hockey stick curve. So the long, flat\u2026 Part of the hockey stick is the unchanging temperature. But that was not in the first IPCC report.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Climate reconstructions of the \u2018Medieval Warm Period\u2019 1000-1200 AD. Legend: MWP was warm (red), cold (blue), dry (yellow), wet<\/strong><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The first IPCC report showed that it was much warmer in Northern Europe and United States, North America, in the year 1000 than it is today.\u00a0There really was a medieval warm period,<\/strong>\u00a0which was what allowed the Norse to settle in Greenland and have a century or two of successful agriculture there. It\u2019s never gotten that warm again since.\u00a0\u00a0It may happen, but\u00a0the hockey stick curve basically erased that<\/strong>, so it was\u2026 It\u2019s like these Orwellian novels. 1984, there was this\u2026\u00a0They continued to rewrite history,<\/strong>\u00a0you know, so what was history yesterday was not history today, you know. So, it was rewriting the past. There clearly was a warm period. There is evidence from all around the globe that it was much warmer in the year 1000 than today. We still have not gotten as warm as it was then.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes, yes, and the warm period, as I understand, was followed by the Little Ice Age. So 19th century, the warming that started then is actually, it started at the end of this Little Ice Age.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest period of the past 10,000 years, that ended about 150 years ago.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> That\u2019s right, that\u2019s right. For example, that\u2019s very clear if you come to Alaska, And look at the Alaska glaciers. In particular, there\u2019s a famous glacier bay in Alaska<\/strong> which was filled with glaciers in the year 1790<\/strong> when it was first mapped by the British captain Vancouver. the ice came right out to the Pacific.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And already by 1800, it had receded up into the bay. Some of it was melting by 1800. And by 1850, most of the ice was gone.<\/strong> I\u2019m talking about the 1800s, not the 1900s, not the present time. So it\u2019s pretty clear from Glacier Bay that the warming began around the year 1800.  And it\u2019s just been steadily warming since<\/strong> then.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> I have been shown another graph many times which shows a correlation between the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature rise during the last, let\u2019s say, 150-200 years.  Yeah, it\u2019s a correlation, of course, but is there any causation as well? Because you pointed it out as well that there is a warming effect.  Carbon dioxide has a warming effect in the atmosphere, but it\u2019s not leading as I understand.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
\u25ba Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11\u201312 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. \u25ba Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5\u201310 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. \u25ba Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. \u25ba Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. \u25ba Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WH: <\/strong>Yeah, that\u2019s correct. You know, you can estimate past CO2 levels by looking at bubbles in ice cores from Antarctica or from Greenland. And you can also estimate past temperatures by looking at the ratios of oxygen isotopes in the ice and the other proxies. So there are these proxy estimates of past CO2 levels and past temperature.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And they are indeed tightly correlated. When their temperature is high, CO2 levels are high, and temperature is low, CO2 levels are low. But if you look at the time dependence, in every case, first the temperature changes and then the CO2 changes.<\/strong> Temperature goes up, a little bit later CO2 goes up.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Temperature goes down, a little bit later CO2 goes down. So they are indeed correlated, but the cause is not CO2, the cause is temperature. So something makes the temperature change and the CO2 is forced to follow. That\u2019s easy to understand. It\u2019s mostly due to CO2 dissolving in the ocean.<\/strong> The solubility of CO2 is very temperature dependent.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So if the world ocean\u2019s cool, they suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. And if they warm, more CO2 can come back into the atmosphere. So there\u2019s nothing surprising about that. The only surprise is nobody really knows why the temperature changes, but it\u2019s certainly not CO2 causing it to change because the CO2 follows the change.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS: It doesn\u2019t precede it.\u00a0Causes have to precede their effects.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0from the same 2023 presentation that I already mentioned that I listened. And as a member of Jason in 1982, you were one of the authors of a scientific paper that aimed to measure the effects of CO2 to global warming. The first number you got was too small. Then you just arbitrarily increased it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> You\u2019re asking, the key question is how much warming would be caused if you double carbon dioxide. That\u2019s sometimes called the climate sensitivity or the doubling sensitivity. And the first person to seriously try to calculate that theoretically was your neighbor across the Baltic, Svante Arrhenius. He was a Swede and a very good chemist, and he was interested in this problem. He was the first one to really work on it, and his first paper was written in 1896. So the first climate warming paper was 1896 by Arrhenius,<\/strong> and he estimated that doubling CO2 at that time would warm the earth by around six degrees.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was a big number. He didn\u2019t know very much, so it was not a bad number given what he knew at the time. As he learned more, he kept bringing that number down, so the last number he published was about four degrees, and it was still going down.  So the number that we published was three degrees, this little Jason study. So it was only a little bit smaller than Arrhenius\u2019 number. But that was because neither he nor we really knew enough about how the climate works to get a reliable answer.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I think the only way to really get a reliable answer is from good observations over long periods of time. And we simply don\u2019t have good enough empirical data right now to know what that is. But I\u2019m pretty sure that doubling CO2 by itself is unlikely to cause warming of more than about one degree Celsius.<\/strong> You know, if you do the simplest calculation, you find that answer, it\u2019s a bit less than one degree for doubling CO2.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so three degrees, four degrees, the only way to get that is with enormous positive feedbacks.<\/strong> And so that\u2019s what these computer models<\/strong> do that we\u2019ve been talking about.  They inject feedbacks in a very obscure way<\/strong> so you can\u2019t figure out what they\u2019ve done. But it\u2019s a supercomputer, so how could it be wrong? It must be right, it\u2019s a computer after all. But nevertheless, it\u2019s giving these absurd positive feedbacks. And most feedbacks in nature are not positive, they\u2019re negative.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s even a law called <\/em>Le Chatelier\u2019s Principle, which is that if you perturb some chemical system or physical system,<\/strong> it has feedbacks. And they try to reduce the perturbation.<\/strong> They don\u2019t try to make it bigger. They try to make it smaller. So climate has turned that completely on its head. It says all feedbacks in climate are positive, and if it\u2019s negative, forget about it. You won\u2019t get your research grant renewed next year if you put that in your proposal. So it\u2019s a mess, and it\u2019s going to take a long time to clean this up.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, if someone is not on the right side of this net zero debate, people are starting calling him names. He\u2019s a climate denier or climate skeptic and so on. But those ad hominem arguments are what are used in the media to shut down the arguments of even scientists<\/strong>.  One of them is that if you\u2019re not a climate scientist, you\u2019re not allowed to talk about climate.  Well, of course, that\u2019s nonsense. Climate is really all physics and chemistry. And so anyone with a good grounding in physics and chemistry can know as much about climate as a climate scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In general, climate scientists are not well educated.<\/strong> When I look at American universities, maybe it\u2019s better in Estonia, but you go to a class and your education consists on how do you organize a petition to your local legislator. So that\u2019s your knowledge as a climate scientist. You don\u2019t have to learn physics, you don\u2019t have to learn chemistry, you don\u2019t have to learn electromagnetics and radiation transfer. You have to learn how to work the political process. <\/strong> So it\u2019s true that most physicists aren\u2019t very good at that. You know, they\u2019re quite good at physics, but they\u2019re not very good at talking to the Congress or to the president.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Yeah, yeah. So basically, climate science has become something more like a social science in that sense.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Yeah, that\u2019s right. It\u2019s been very heavily politicized.<\/strong> There was something very similar to this in the Soviet Union in the field of biology. There was this Ukrainian agronomist, Lysenko,<\/strong> who\u2026 got the ear of the Communist Party and was supported for many decades with just crazy theories about biology, you know, you could grow peaches on the Arctic Circle if you just listen to him.  All sorts of nutty things and that there was no such thing as genes, but he had a lot of political support and so he essentially destroyed biology for a generation in the Soviet Union.  You know if you taught your class about genes, you know, Mendel\u2019s wrinkled peas and smooth peas, you were lucky if you were only fired, you know, you could have been sent to a concentration camp and several people were condemned to death for teaching about genes. And so I think climate science is a lot more like Lysenkoism than it is normal science.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Yes, well, yes, this is something that we should be able to learn from because this was the Stalin era, this was the craziest time period, absolutely. In Eastern Europe we also know a lot about that and it does seem to me as well that L\u00f6schenkism is something that is like gaslighting the public and ostracizing renowned scientists<\/strong>, for example, like yourself. This is something that has been done related to climate science. Or how do you feel that? Do you feel that you have been targeted by those activists, activist politicians or not?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong>\u00a0I don\u2019t feel any pain. I don\u2019t pay much attention to them because I have very little respect for them.\u00a0The people that I respect, most of them agree with me. I\u2019ve personally not suffered from it,<\/strong>\u00a0perhaps just because I don\u2019t pay attention to it. I\u2019m older, I\u2019m retired, so I\u2019m not dependent on government grants.\u00a0\u00a0Younger people could not do this. So,\u00a0people in the middle of their career have a very serious problem<\/strong>\u00a0because they\u2019ll lose their research funding, and they won\u2019t be able to continue their career if they don\u2019t sign up to the alarmist Dogma.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> And one of the things how they shut down criticism is simply by stating that 97% of climate scientists<\/strong> are saying that our climate change or global warming, it is anthropogenic and you cannot argue with 97%, can you? What do you think? Is science democracy?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong>\u00a0There are some small anthropogenic effects on climate. Any big city, for example, is quite a bit warmer than the countryside. If you go 30 kilometers outside of New York City, it\u2019s cooler. Or any other big city. So those are called\u00a0urban heat island effects.<\/strong>\u00a0So, it\u2019s clearly caused by people.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

But if you look at undisturbed areas far from urban centers,<\/strong> there the climate is doing what it has always done. It\u2019s warmed, it\u2019s cooled, it\u2019s done that many, many times over history. And there\u2019s not the slightest sign of anything different resulting from our generation burning fossil fuels.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My own guess is that fossil fuels may have caused about close to a degree<\/strong>, maybe three-quarters of a degree of warming, but that\u2019s not very much. When I got up this morning, it was minus 10 Celsius. Here in my office, it\u2019s quite a bit warmer. One degree, you can hardly feel it.<\/strong>  My air conditioner doesn\u2019t trip on and off at one degree, so it\u2019s not a dangerous increase in temperature. Saving the planet from one and a half degree of warming is just crazy. Who cares about one and a half degree of warming? It won\u2019t be that much anyway. But if it were, it wouldn\u2019t matter.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> If the planet warms a bit, is it actually bad to us?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> No, of course it\u2019s not bad. For example, I have a backyard garden, and I would welcome another week or two of frost-free growing season in the fall and in the spring. I could have a better garden, and that\u2019s true over much of the world.  And if you look at the warming, most of the warming is in high latitudes<\/strong> where it\u2019s cold. It\u2019s where you live in Estonia, where I live in New Jersey. It doesn\u2019t warm in India. It doesn\u2019t warm in the Congo or in the Amazon. Even, you know, the climate models don\u2019t predict that. They predict the warming, when it comes, will be mostly at high latitudes near the poles. And that\u2019s where actually the warming will be good, not bad.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> One more question about climate science. It is being told to us that there is a consensus on anthropogenic climate change.<\/strong> And my question actually here is that in science, can there be a consensus? What is a consensus in science even?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, I think you know very well that science has nothing to do with consensus. Michael Crichton was very eloquent about this<\/strong>. And if you don\u2019t know about his work, you should read it. But he says when someone uses the word consensus, they\u2019re really talking about politics, not science.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science is determined by how well your understanding agrees with observations<\/strong>. If you have a theory and it agrees with observations, then the theory is probably right. But it\u2019s right not because everybody, all your friends agree with it, it\u2019s because it agrees with observation. You make a prediction and you do an experiment to see whether the prediction is right. If the experiment confirms it, then the theory is probably okay<\/strong>. It\u2019s not okay because everybody agrees with you that your theory is right. And so that\u2019s what the climate scientists are trying to claim, that science is made by consensus. It\u2019s not made by consensus.  There really is a science that is independent of people.<\/strong> There is a reality that could care less what the consensus is. It\u2019s just the way the world works. And that\u2019s real science.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> What are your views on energy transition?<\/strong> Should we, you know, stop burning fossil fuels? And why, if so?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, of course,\u00a0we shouldn\u2019t stop burning fossil fuels.<\/strong>\u00a0We can\u2019t stop, you know.\u00a0It\u2019s suicide<\/strong>. It\u2019s economic suicide. And more than economic, it\u2019s real suicide. People will die. You know, they tried something like that in\u00a0Sri Lanka,<\/strong>\u00a0you know, 15, 20 years ago when the extremist government came in and stopped the use of chemical fertilizer, you know, because it was unnatural. So, everyone was supposed to go back to organic farming and the result was that, you know, the rice crop failed, the tea crop failed, you know, the price of food went up, people were starving in the streets. The same thing will happen if we go to net zero.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

You can\u2019t run the world without fossil fuels<\/strong>. We\u2019re completely dependent on them<\/strong>, especially for agriculture, but transportation and many other things. There\u2019s nothing bad about them. If you burn them in a responsible way, they cause no harm. They release beneficial carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide really benefits the world. It\u2019s not a pollutant at all.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> There is the question of how much longer will fossil fuels last. There is a finite number and for years people have wondered when will they run out and what will we do when we run out of fossil fuels. And so that\u2019s an interesting question that\u2019s worth talking about.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> It\u2019s not an immediate problem, but sooner or later it will be a problem.<\/strong> My own guess, we\u2019re talking about a century or two, not decades.<\/strong> But I think our descendants will have to replace fossil fuels, and my guess<\/strong> is that they will make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels<\/strong>.  No one has ever discovered a better fuel than a hydrocarbon, you know. We ourselves, you know, store energy as hydrocarbons. You know, the fat on our belly, you know, that\u2019s a hydrocarbon. You know, so it\u2019s really good, you know. So we can make hydrocarbons ourselves from limestone and water if you have enough energy.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are ways to do that chemically. And so my guess is that in 200 years, that\u2019s the way energy will be\u2026 handled. We\u2019ll make it from inorganic carbon, limestone probably, and we\u2019ll burn it the same way we do today.<\/strong> You know, we\u2019ll make synthetic diesel, we\u2019ll make synthetic gasoline, and continue to use internal combustion engines.  No one\u2019s invented a better engine than an internal combustion engine.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> But what about nuclear energy? What are your thoughts on that?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

WH:<\/strong> Well, nuclear energy clearly works. It makes electricity, so you can\u2019t run your automobile on nuclear energy unless you\u2019re stupid enough to buy an electric car. So nuclear has had some of the same problems as fossil fuels. There are these ideological foes of nuclear energy<\/strong> And they have two main arguments.<\/strong> The first<\/strong> argument, and one that does worry me, is that it\u2019s not that difficult to change a nuclear commercial enterprise into a weapon<\/strong>. And nuclear weapons really are very, very dangerous.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So that\u2019s one of the oppositions. But the other is completely phony, is that we can\u2019t handle the waste.<\/strong>\u00a0That\u2019s not a difficult problem, actually.\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s technically quite easy<\/strong>\u00a0to handle the waste. For example, at a typical nuclear plant in the United States, there\u2019s a dry cask storage yard, which is not as big as the parking lot. And it\u2019s got a century worth of fuel. It\u2019s perfectly safe. And you could leave it there for several centuries and nothing would happen to it.\u00a0\u00a0So, there\u2019s no need to process it. You can let it sit there and, you know, in a hundred years, maybe people will regard it as a useful mine for various materials.\u00a0So nuclear is fine, and I think it will play an important role for a long time in human affairs.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

You know, the big dream has always been fusion, nuclear fusion energy,<\/strong> where you combine deuterium and tritium, you know, and make power. That\u2019s turned out to be much, much harder than we ever thought it would be. But my guess is it\u2019s a problem that  will eventually be solved.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Someone will have a really good new idea about how to do it. If we keep smart people working on it, someone will figure out how to do it<\/strong>. So I\u2019m optimistic about the future for energy. I think humanity is going to do fine if they don\u2019t self-destruct.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

HS:<\/strong> Well, Professor, to kind of sum up, I would like to ask you about what is, in your opinion, what are the real problems? As I understand, and I tend to agree with you, climate change currently at least is not a real problem for humanity. But probably there are some.<\/strong> And what is your feeling? What are they?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, the problem has always been living together. How do you keep humanity from self-destructing?<\/strong> And that\u2019s why I have some sympathy for the climate alarmists. They thought that having climate as a common enemy would be one way to prevent this. So you have to admit that that\u2019s not such a bad motive.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t think it\u2019s true.\u00a0\u00a0I don\u2019t think it will work. I think it\u2019s worse than nothing. But I guess the question is how do we keep people in a civilized society indefinitely? And As I said,\u00a0I\u2019m a lot better with differential equations and instruments than I am with this sort of a question.<\/strong>\u00a0But just speaking personally,\u00a0I think\u00a0everybody should have a feeling that they\u2019re doing something significant with their lives<\/strong>. So, I think anything we can do in society is to let young people feel like they\u2019re significant and they\u2019re doing something worthwhile and useful it would be good for the whole world.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you read about climate in the newspapers or some talk about climate on television, it will be very, very far from the truth.\u00a0 We\u2019re told that climate change is a direct consequence of human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.\u00a0\u00a0Year after year, you are seeing the dramatic reality of a boiling planet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":368653,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691829997,691818465,691818056,691818152,691824202,691818087,691833642,691818154],"class_list":{"0":"post-368577","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-carbon-dioxide-co","9":"tag-climate","10":"tag-climate-change","11":"tag-climate-emergency","12":"tag-computer-modeling","13":"tag-global-warming","14":"tag-little-dictators","15":"tag-net-zero","17":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0-Climate-Scare.jpg?fit=1280%2C720&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1xSN","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":411676,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=411676","url_meta":{"origin":368577,"position":0},"title":"Climate Hypocrite Harrison Ford Demands We Change OUR Lifestyles","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"But it is OK for important people to use private jets?","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNuLotR4JIREX0InNdQ9DXZpphV3ZamfrhFPsEegvZNVoc_xDV9vKIzE_qZllYqT_7ePe0cFV16zVHu2HIJNqDjRfWohG7bDnDxwBNCPVb4S6_NCw9Bz3aPCwQ6E21O-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C645&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNuLotR4JIREX0InNdQ9DXZpphV3ZamfrhFPsEegvZNVoc_xDV9vKIzE_qZllYqT_7ePe0cFV16zVHu2HIJNqDjRfWohG7bDnDxwBNCPVb4S6_NCw9Bz3aPCwQ6E21O-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C645&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNuLotR4JIREX0InNdQ9DXZpphV3ZamfrhFPsEegvZNVoc_xDV9vKIzE_qZllYqT_7ePe0cFV16zVHu2HIJNqDjRfWohG7bDnDxwBNCPVb4S6_NCw9Bz3aPCwQ6E21O-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C645&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNuLotR4JIREX0InNdQ9DXZpphV3ZamfrhFPsEegvZNVoc_xDV9vKIzE_qZllYqT_7ePe0cFV16zVHu2HIJNqDjRfWohG7bDnDxwBNCPVb4S6_NCw9Bz3aPCwQ6E21O-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C645&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQNuLotR4JIREX0InNdQ9DXZpphV3ZamfrhFPsEegvZNVoc_xDV9vKIzE_qZllYqT_7ePe0cFV16zVHu2HIJNqDjRfWohG7bDnDxwBNCPVb4S6_NCw9Bz3aPCwQ6E21O-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C645&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275535,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=275535","url_meta":{"origin":368577,"position":1},"title":"Fact Checking The Met Office\u2019s Fact\u00a0Checks","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"25\/08\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"It seems the Met Office is getting worried that its one-sided reporting of climate change is becoming exposed, as people are beginning to check the facts for themselves","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-censor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-censor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-censor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-censor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-censor.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":260868,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=260868","url_meta":{"origin":368577,"position":2},"title":"Biased New \u2018Study\u2019 Claims Florida Strawberry Scare \u2013 As Harvests Set Records","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"At the top of today\u2019s \u201cclimate change\u201d search results promoted by Google News is\u00a0an article by Axios\u00a0claiming \u201cFlorida\u2019s strawberry industry threatened by climate change.\u201d The article uncritically parrots talking points from\u00a0a paper published by the activist group Environment Defense Fund (EDF), which raises\u00a0hundreds of millions of dollars each year\u00a0promoting false\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0IMG_20140329_092858.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0IMG_20140329_092858.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0IMG_20140329_092858.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0IMG_20140329_092858.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0IMG_20140329_092858.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":231890,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=231890","url_meta":{"origin":368577,"position":3},"title":"Laurence Fox: The Top FIVE Climate Change LIES","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/12\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Laurence Fox breaks apart the lies repeatedly fed to the public and details the manipulation by the billionaire-funded lobby groups and activists,\u00a0says Climate Change Dispatch.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/00Screenshot-2022-12-01-115858.png?fit=896%2C503&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/00Screenshot-2022-12-01-115858.png?fit=896%2C503&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/00Screenshot-2022-12-01-115858.png?fit=896%2C503&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/00Screenshot-2022-12-01-115858.png?fit=896%2C503&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213930,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=213930","url_meta":{"origin":368577,"position":4},"title":"Poll: Public Concern about Climate Change Warnings is Plummeting","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/08\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c\u2026 individuals don\u2019t feel they have the bandwidth to tackle climate action \u201con top of everything else,\u201d \u2026\u201d","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-628.png?fit=750%2C385&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-628.png?fit=750%2C385&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-628.png?fit=750%2C385&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-628.png?fit=750%2C385&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256531,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=256531","url_meta":{"origin":368577,"position":5},"title":"Claim:\u00a0 Turbulence is Getting Worse due to Climate Change","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"From the camp of \u201clet\u2019s scare airline travelers without checking the data first\u201d are a number of news reports that hit the press about a month ago claiming that climate change is making aircraft turbulence worse.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0429492-Kycb.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0429492-Kycb.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0429492-Kycb.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0429492-Kycb.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0429492-Kycb.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=368577"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368577\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":368654,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368577\/revisions\/368654"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/368653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=368577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=368577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=368577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}