{"id":451953,"date":"2026-06-24T06:20:57","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T13:20:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=451953"},"modified":"2026-06-24T06:20:59","modified_gmt":"2026-06-24T13:20:59","slug":"romantic-science-to-a-climate-alarmist-dessler-props-up-the-cause","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=451953","title":{"rendered":"Romantic Science to a Climate Alarmist (Dessler props up \u2018the cause\u2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Master Resource<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Robert Bradley Jr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cClimate science is the worst example to try to explain and defend the scientific method. But will Andrew Dessler seriously reconsider his unrealistic view of climate science in theory and practice? Climategate exposed the bias that has continued to this day.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The romantic view of government sees wise, selfless rulers implementing policy to better the common good. Never mind that many alleged market failures are government-related on close inspection, and \u2018government failure\u2019 (the political process as described by Public Choice economics<\/a>) must be weighed against \u2018market failure\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enter climate experts relying on global climate modeling. Enter Andrew Dessler<\/a>, atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University, who doubles as a climate alarmist\/campaigner. \u201cAngry Andy\u201d has no appetite for critics of his view of settled science and impending doom short of Big Government (Big Climate Brother). [1]<\/strong> He knows what\u2019s best and wants to save us from ourselves\u2013and with an Amway look in his eye.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andrew Dessler has fooled himself. In an attempt to capture the common sense, moral high ground, he presents the following description of good science without seriously seeing how climatology has sabotaged itself for \u201cthe cause.\u201d [2]<\/strong> His bio states<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I spent 2000 as a Senior Policy Analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (photo<\/a>). While there, I became aware of a profound lack of understanding among policymakers and the general public about how science works and how to interpret the conflicting claims one often hears in policy debates. Based on that experience, I wrote a book<\/a> that uses examples from the climate change arena to explain how science is used and misused in the policy arena.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He recently revisited this theme at Climate Brink with How Science Works in Three Steps<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguments over any scientific topic \u2014 climate change, vaccines, you name it \u2014 revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren\u2019t. That method is what I want to walk through.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: Dessler is being vague with his qualitative questions. Jumping from the human influence to \u201cimpacts\u201d (highly negative to him) is subtle deceit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they\u2019ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That\u2019s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it\u2019s more iterative \u2014 you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you\u2019ve ended up with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: Dessler again hides the weenie. Climate models are far from objective when it comes to \u201cdesign, test, and refine.\u201d Models are causality deficient and not testable as is CO2 science performed under other-things-equal conditions (the greenhouse).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this isn\u2019t science. It\u2019s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes \u2014 scientists are human. Maybe there\u2019s a bug in the code, maybe there\u2019s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s right, and scientists don\u2019t treat a single result as settled truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: Experiments? This scientific method is beyond climate models, what Dessler conveniently hides (more deceit). And what about the Climategate scientists who were the cream of the IPCC crop? Experiments under the scientific method are controlled, just the opposite of the gravy train of climate \u2018science\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Step two is peer review,<\/strong> the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they\u2019ll tell you peer review is miserable \u2014 the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: Peer review? Back to Climategate. \u201cI can\u2019t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!\u201d \u2013 \u2014Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, July 8, 2004.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can\u2019t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can\u2019t catch hidden errors \u2014 a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn\u2019t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: Inherent biases of researchers with a \u201ccause\u201d and retractions and new-replacing-old explains a lot of climate alarm. Why has \u2018peer review\u2019 failed on a variety of population and resource issues since the Paul Ehrlich heyday in the 1960s? Neo-Malthusianism has passed the review test in such publications as Science and Nature from the beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s where step three comes in: the crucible of science.<\/strong> Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That\u2019s how we generate knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 \u2014 and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well \u2014 Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: Okay, give us some examples from the mainstream climate science literature. The predictions from the 1980s to the present. Oops, can\u2019t go there. More deceit from the-fix-is-in Dessler.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it\u2019s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There\u2019s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It\u2019s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn\u2019t even mention the rival theories \u2014 it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That\u2019s what a consensus looks like. It doesn\u2019t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there\u2019s no longer any legitimate debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: And what does this have to do with the alarmist conclusion of physical climate science? The rest of the story please.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So where can you see what scientists actually think? It\u2019s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there\u2019s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole \u2014 without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: And regarding CO2 as a major negative and threat to the future of human flourishing? That is the debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call \u201cnerd.\u201d It\u2019s extremely hard to read \u2014 honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can\u2019t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: And look at the ruined reputation of climate science, based on climate models and polluted by activists (such as Dessler) who look to politics and government first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where scientific assessments come in.<\/strong> The most famous is the IPCC \u2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what\u2019s settled, what\u2019s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: Sorry, but the IPCC is thoroughly politicized. As Dessler said about the IPCC Climategate gang back in 2009: \u201cThere is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: \u201c\u2026 why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible.\u201d Sorry, but outside of The Tribe (a term used by Judith Curry), consensus is not science. Qualitative relationships do not mean climate alarm\u2013that is where the bias, tribe, and cause come in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability \u2014 in other words, we don\u2019t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence \u2014 a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged \u201clikely\u201d due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, \u201cvery likely\u201d; by 2013, \u201cextremely likely.\u201d The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 \u2014 there\u2019s not much stronger language available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: That aside, is the human influence good or bad? Deep Ecology\u2019s guilty-until-proven-innocent does not cut it. A simple task such as dividing the warming into max and min increases and by month would be a good start to estimate benefits and costs. Focus on that, Professor Dessler. Data trumps models, right? Government is hardly the institution of effective change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe \u2014 the most successful method we\u2019ve ever developed for determining what\u2019s true and what isn\u2019t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that\u2019s where to look. And for those of us who don\u2019t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone \u2014 they translate nerd into English.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment<\/strong>: And the skeptics of climate alarm and forced energy transformation agree and ask for climate science to follow the scientific method, as done in the separate field of CO2 Science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dessler has fooled himself in his romantic view of climate science, which is one of the worst if not the worst offender of the scientific method. My major points are restated (and Dessler is invited to respond, implicitly or explicitly):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Climate modeling is at the core of physical climate science. Yet global climate reproductions are causality-deficient and not testable per the scientific method. CO2 science, conducting experiments in greenhouse (\u2018other things equal\u2019) conditions is the opposite (and beneficial). Settled science? Nope. As MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel noted: \u201cI actually share with [opponent] John [Christy] an inherent distrust of complicated models. I don\u2019t like them particularly. It\u2019s one of the necessary evils<\/em>.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The RCP 8.5 base case, which launched a thousand journal articles, has been abandoned by the climate establishment. This related to the climate modeling problem, above.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Peer review? Consider this quotation from the Climategate emails (Phil Jones, 2004): \u201cI can\u2019t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow \u2014 even if we have to redefine what the literature peer-review status is in the late 2000s.\u201d<\/em> Dessler himself admitted: \u201cThere is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science\u201d <\/em>(2009)].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Government funding and self-interest working in unsettled space is a recipe for pseudoscience. A climate scientist, owing to a number of factors, can simply chose to investigate the negatives of the human influence on climate rather than study the positives. And by making a convenient assumption (RCP 8.5), the worst-case scenario is presented as \u2018science\u2019.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Consensus is not science. Climate science is unsettled. MIT\u2019s Emanuel, author of What We Know About Climate Change<\/em>, remarked: \u201cIf I\u2019d written a book called What We Don\u2019t Know about Climate Science<\/em>, it would have been an encyclopedia.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. The IPCC process has been compromised by politics between the core of the report to the Summary for Policymakers to the media interpretation of the Summary without correction by the scientific community<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Physical climate science is just the beginning. Public policy must also consider climate economics (which Dessler rejects<\/a>: \u201cIn order to solve the climate problem, the first thing we need to do is ignore the economists<\/em>\u201d) and government failure alongside alleged market failure and analytic failure.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Climate science is the worst example to try to explain and defend the scientific method. But will Andrew Dessler seriously reconsider his unrealistic view of climate science in theory and practice? Climategate exposed bias that has continued to this day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is time for humility and a start-over. Climate alarmism is old, largely falsified, and rightfully demoted in the public eye. Realism and depoliticization can bring physical climate science back to the realm of respected science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    [1]<\/strong> Consider these quotations<\/a> from Dessler\u2019s past:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cFossil fuels are shredding our democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cIf you\u2019re pushing fossil fuels at this point, you\u2019re anti-human.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    I find the path we\u2019re on now \u2014 the rich world survives (if lucky), but abandons everyone else \u2014 to be morally problematic.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Hey assholes. We\u2019ve been telling you for decades that this was going to happen if we didn\u2019t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You didn\u2019t listen and now it\u2019s all happening. We hope you\u2019re happy. Enjoy the heatwaves, intense rainfall, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and many other things, you fucking morons.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    [2]<\/strong> This infamous term was used by Michael Mann in a Climategate email<\/a> (May 30, 2008): \u201cI gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don\u2019t know what she thinks she\u2019s doing, but it\u2019s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \u201cClimate science is the worst example to try to explain and defend the scientific method. But will Andrew Dessler seriously reconsider his unrealistic view of climate science in theory and practice? Climategate exposed the bias that has continued to this day.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":451956,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_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":[691843787,691843788,691829997,691818056,691818153,691819140,691831936,691819265,691843789,691827037],"class_list":["post-451953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-angry-andy","tag-big-government-big-climate-brother","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-models","tag-climate-science","tag-climate-scientist-alarmist-activist-andrew-dessler","tag-climategate","tag-ipcc-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change","tag-peer-review","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/0-ChatGPT-Romantic-Science-to-a-Climate-Alarmist.png?fit=1536%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1Tzz","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":264490,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264490","url_meta":{"origin":451953,"position":0},"title":"Andrew Dessler on Texas Heat: Vague but Exaggerated","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/29\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Dessler is certain that he knows what is to be known about all things climate and energy. But, really, he does not know what he does not know. (Yes, climate science is highly uncertain, and\u00a0climate models are a mess.)\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"Andrew Dessler\"","block_context":{"text":"Andrew Dessler","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=andrew-dessler"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0hot.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0hot.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0hot.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0hot.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0hot.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265336,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=265336","url_meta":{"origin":451953,"position":1},"title":"Happy 4th: Driving, Grilling, Fireworks","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Independence Day could also be called the\u00a0CO2 Holiday\u00a0with all the driving, grilling, and fireworks. So ignore the climate alarmists and eco-snoops. Celebrate the traditions of the July 4th with\u00a0gusto!","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Alarmists\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Alarmists","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmists"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/04th_of_July.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/04th_of_July.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/04th_of_July.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/04th_of_July.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/04th_of_July.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287513,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=287513","url_meta":{"origin":451953,"position":2},"title":"\u201cClimate Emergency!\u201d says Andrew Dessler (old vinegar in a new bottle)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"You get the story. Dessler\u2019s alarm is old vinegar in a new bottle. In view of the historical record, his readers should be cautious. From\u00a0Master Resource By Robert Bradley Jr. \u201cA few days ago, a recent\u00a0Washington Post article\u00a0highlighted the growing chorus of scientists who increasingly view climate change as an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Andrew Dessler\"","block_context":{"text":"Andrew Dessler","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=andrew-dessler"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/image-307.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/image-307.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/image-307.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/image-307.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/image-307.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":354286,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=354286","url_meta":{"origin":451953,"position":3},"title":"Andrew Dessler\u2019s Strange Optimism (post-election groping)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/13\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The recent election should have thrown climate scientist\/alarmist\/activist Andrew Dessler into a funk, even toward self-doubt and need to check his anti-CO2 premises. His all-out exaggeration about a climate emergency was resoundingly rejected by the winning party and\u00a0abandoned as an important talking point by the losing party.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Andrew-Dessler.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Andrew-Dessler.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Andrew-Dessler.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Andrew-Dessler.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Andrew-Dessler.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":366050,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=366050","url_meta":{"origin":451953,"position":4},"title":"Climate Advocacy, not Scholarship: UNLV Professor Leffel at Work","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/14\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Yes! End federal grants and spare the taxpayer! Climate scientists should be more amenable to doing controversial projects that are less alarmist or even pro-CO2.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/02084726.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/02084726.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/02084726.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/02084726.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/02084726.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":342577,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=342577","url_meta":{"origin":451953,"position":5},"title":"David Appell: Another Bad Climate Apple","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/10\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"If temperament and\u00a0dramatis personae matter, the climate alarmists lose resoundingly to their scientific critics. I have gotten to know the quite reasonable, friendly\u00a0Roy Spencer,\u00a0John Christy,\u00a0Craig D. Idso,\u00a0Richard Lindzen, and other leaders of the so-called climate realist, global lukewarming school. And Marlo Lewis et al. (CEI); James Taylor, Sterling Burnett, et\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Alarmists\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Alarmists","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmists"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0applesclimate-1_custom-7989b74c313cecd4afcc15acfe1f4e6eb64bbc10-s1100-c50.jpg?fit=1100%2C732&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0applesclimate-1_custom-7989b74c313cecd4afcc15acfe1f4e6eb64bbc10-s1100-c50.jpg?fit=1100%2C732&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0applesclimate-1_custom-7989b74c313cecd4afcc15acfe1f4e6eb64bbc10-s1100-c50.jpg?fit=1100%2C732&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0applesclimate-1_custom-7989b74c313cecd4afcc15acfe1f4e6eb64bbc10-s1100-c50.jpg?fit=1100%2C732&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0applesclimate-1_custom-7989b74c313cecd4afcc15acfe1f4e6eb64bbc10-s1100-c50.jpg?fit=1100%2C732&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451953","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=451953"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451953\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":451957,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451953\/revisions\/451957"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/451956"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=451953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=451953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=451953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}