Listen to this post
EDITOR’S NOTE: Due to print space constraints, this piece is only available in its entirety online.
RBC I Since Dr. Dorsett chose to try to discredit the sources I used rather than discuss the science, I asked if I could offer a counter to some of what he wrote, and the editor was gracious enough to allow me one last article. My point here is not to try to persuade Dr. Dorsett or anyone else of anything, but simply to offer some corrections that need to be addressed.
First, Dr. Dorsett states that Patrick Moore wasn’t a founding member of Greenpeace, and almost makes it sound as if he wasn’t involved at all. According to Wikipedia, while Dr. Moore wasn’t part of the group “Don’t Make a Wave” when it formed in 1970, he did join soon thereafter and was part of the inner circle when the name was changed to Greenpeace in 1971, which is why he states he was a cofounder of that group. According to Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter, “Moore was accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation, and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions.” He was president of Greenpeace Canada until 1986 when he realized it “took a sharp turn to the political left” and “evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas.” (1) If you check out his credentials, they are impeccable, but he has chosen to follow the science rather than the so-called “consensus.” Does that mean Dr. Moore has nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion?
Next, as for the allegations made against Dr. Soon, challenging both his educational credentials and who funds his work, Dr. Dorsett cites as his source of information a far left website that failed to delete false information about Dr. Soon. There had been a challenge made by Greenpeace, and reported by the New York Times (2) but the Harvard Smithsonian cleared that allegation and pointed out that while Dr. Soon does raise some of his own salary as do others on his team, no one pays him directly, and the amount of $1.2 million in grants was paid to the Smithsonian Institution over a 10 year period of time, and they kept 40% for their share. By agreement, Dr. Soon isn’t even aware of who all the donors are. (3) Also, Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist and geoscientist, not an aeronautical engineer as stated by Dr. Dorsett. Those are very different disciplines. His specific title is “an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a position he has held since 1997.” As someone in this position, he should be well qualified to discuss the possible impact of solar rays, radiation and magnetic influence of the sun on our planet. From the beginning of 2000 through 2019, Dr. Soon has published at least 55 articles on the subject of climate.(4)
Third when it comes to the veracity of the 97% agreement among scientists, there is a very valid paper out discrediting that claim. In a court case, (CASE NOS. C-17-06011) a friends of the court brief was filed that discussed a peer-reviewed published paper that showed the IPCC falsely asserted 97.1% of 11944 papers agreed with anthropogenic warming. In fact, while most of those papers agreed that climate change had taken place, many were undecided about the cause, and when carefully examined, only 43 or 0.3% of those papers had stated their specific assent to that conclusion. (5) (6) Just because some quasi-governmental entity makes a claim, does not make it a true statement.
Fourth, regarding the issue of who is funding whom, I personally agree with those who are asking, “Why is it that only the skeptics are challenged on this subject?’ As Dr. Judith Curry points out, when Barack Obama was president, he made it a point to tell people to go after “science deniers,” since he considered anyone skeptical of the climate change alarmism to be outright deniers of science. She also points out that all the players that Dr. Dorsett said were funding Soon are also funding the college programs that support Dr. Dorsett’s position. Stanford, Princeton, the Sierra Club, the nature Conservancy and others take fossil fuel money on a regular basis. (7)
Fifth, when we look around at all the major universities and how far Left (in Latin the word means Sinister) they have become, it is no wonder that allowing both sides to be included in the discussion has become verboten. Scientists who want to seek the truth have to find their own funding because many mainstream sources will pull funding if a scientist goes against the grain. (8) When Dr. Dorsett states that the historical examples of science that I gave have nothing to do with science, shows to me an unwillingness to even consider a view different from his own. I have actually studied this issue quite a bit for years and have read far more than I planned even before I started writing. One thing I know for certain is that some people, like Al Gore, have certainly gotten quite wealthy by promoting the “sky is falling” view. What bothers me more than anything else is the religious zeal of those pushing this view. I was always taught that science is always seeking and learning. Open discussion and debate is necessary. As Dr. Legates and others argue, those at the top of this Climate Alarmism have an agenda that will hurt people and the planet far more than CO2 emissions. (9) Doesn’t this bring to mind what Rahm Emmanuel said when he stated in an interview, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” (10)
Sixth, as for the concern that plants need more water with more CO2, if you read the information written by those who actually use CO2 in their greenhouses rather than those creating computer models, you will find that plants with enough CO2 actually use LESS water, as I stated in part 2 of this series. (11)
Seventh, according to one of Dr. Dorsett’s sources, those skeptical of a doomsday scenario are heard far more often than “true” climate scientists. (12) While I would agree with him when they are referencing the FOX network, but overall, I see just the opposite in the mainstream news networks. If they reference scientists like Dr. Soon, it’s in a negative context. In public schools, K through University, there is only a one-sided presentation (which is beginning, by the way, to have negative consequences (13)) so there is no way that scientists questioning the current dogma are given more time than those pushing it. When it’s argued that both sides shouldn’t get equal time to present their facts, it sounds a whole lot more like a religious creed than science. Science, after all, thrives on open inquiry, critical analysis, and debate.
As I stated earlier, of course we must care for the world in which we live, and that includes working towards alternative forms of energy, but alarmism and hysteria is hurting everyone, especially our children.
By LEONA HEMMERICH
Special to the HT