Destroying the Rational Climate Change Scientists. Part IV, Kerry Brown Series.

Better not use real science and reason to examine the role of man in climate change. You will be facing many bullies.

Better not use real science and reason to examine the role of man in climate change. You will be facing many bullies.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken … Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” Dr. William Harper, “U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, January 14, 2009. Archived March 5, 2009.

“It is very likely that governments, the environmental lobby, academe and the news media have spent far more on information (and perhaps on misinformation) than the fossil fuel lobby.”  from “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’”, Science and Education (Scientific Journal), 2013 Dr. David Legates, University of Delaware.

Editors Note: Part IV of Kerry Brown’s analysis on climate change focusses on the attacks on the scientists who actually use science as their guide rather than politics or grant funding. He points to the myth that of the oft-repeated claim that 97% of scientists agree climate change is caused by man. He shows us how those who disagree are subject to character assassination, lawsuits and death threats.  Just last month some government-funded warming scientists actually advocated that the Obama administration file racketeering lawsuits against scientists that disagreed with their conclusions!  He starts off by describing the personal attacks on Dr. William Harper who has shown the weak scientific basis of theorized man-made global warming.

By Kerry Brown, Esq.


Bicycling to work, Dr. William Happer has plenty of time to ponder the complex questions of climate change. Although he keeps his carbon footprint small, this award-winning Princeton University physics professor still receives more than the occasional threat, such as:

“You are an educated Nazi and should hang from the neck.”

Dr. Happer’s personal and professional character has also been regularly attacked. He attracts this hatred even though he is the originator of the “sodium guide star” (well known to Defense Department laser warfare experts and astronomers alike), was director of the huge Department of Energy research section in the early 90’s, and then directed the Princeton University Research Board for about 10 years.  He has felt some pressure from alumni and faculty to “mend his evil ways.” It took the university president to remind everyone of the quaint protections known as free speech and academic freedom.

Will Happer’s courage has been applauded by fellow scientists such as Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, Larry Bell, professor of space science at the University of Houston, Dr. Gray of University of Colorado hurricane forecasting fame, Dr. Harrison Schmitt, the last man to walk on the moon, Ray Spencer, senior scientist at NASA’s Space Flight Center and co-developer of the satellite temperature measurement system (the most accurate one by far), and many others.

Dr. Happer was kind enough to invite me to his office one Saturday this past July. He was up at the blackboard within 5 minutes diagramming and explaining the benefits of C02 to crop yields and forests. He has started the non-profit “C02 Coalition” to talk about a cost-benefit approach to increased C02.  This is anathema to environmental zealots and EPA bureaucrats, who in an Orwellian twist of language have labeled C02, one of the basic building blocks of all life, a “pollutant.”

Let’s move on to the claim that 97% of scientists are in consensus on global warming. Doctor Legates, et al., debunked this claim in “Climate Consensus and Misinformation,” published in Science and Education (August 2013).  It is written in academese; but it can be downloaded for your perusal. A more readable (and funny) treatment can be found in Mark Steyn’s recent “A Disgrace to the Profession” (Stockade Books, 2015). A review of the book by another Princetonian, Dr. Jay Lehr, is attached hereto as well. Steyn devotes one chapter to casting doubt on the 97% consensus study.  In short, there was a subjective culling of 3000 scientists responding to a poll, down to less than 100!

A personal observation of Steyn arises from the pending lawsuit against him by Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann. Steyn has had numerous supportive legal briefs filed by the Washington Post and some of the big networks. Not one scientist or environmental group has filed an amicus brief supporting Mann’s defamation claim against Steyn’s characterization of the hockey stick temperature graph as a “fraud.”  Mann and his infamous stick were celebrated by inventor of the internet, Al Gore, in his “Inconvenient Truth” movie and by the UN’s climate panel.  Wonder how many students in the past 10 years have been force-fed this falsified claim that we have been in the warmest cycle for over 2,000 years? Oh, and this stink has been fermenting for many years without retraction by the alarmist and educational establishments.  Finally Mann is being deserted even by the alarmists. How does it feel Mr. Shame and Blame? Alarm bells should have gone off long ago when Mann refused other scientists’ request for his data and computations. What other consensus claims have been doped, either for the “common good” or for profit?

Steyn catalogues 100 scientists who have attacked the hockey stick, many of whom are global warming alarmists. He says he believes he has that many again of scientists dismayed at one of the originators of the “consensus.” Stay tuned for Volume II of the declining “97% consensus” and hopefully Steyn’s victory in court.

Finally, please look at You Tube for videos of Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. One explains why he left Greenpeace (when it turned away from science). The other is an effective presentation why the warming trend of the late 20th century (it has been essentially flat since then) can’t be so simply blamed on man’s emissions of CO2. Basically, the climate is always changing and it is very complex and not fully understood or accurately forecast. By the way, it has been as warm twice in the last 2 thousand years, the last being the medieval warm era, both not caused by man’s CO2. Then we had the Little Ice Age which ended in the 1800’s followed by the warming 1900’s. But pesky facts such as these get in the way of “saving the planet!!!” As I like to say, skeptics are saving the humans from those saying they want to save the planet.
Kerry H. Brown, Attorney
447 3rd Avenue N. #310
St Petersburg, Fl. 33701