Science is getting it wrong on climate change – is it shocking?

Wallace Manheimer

Statements on “climate change” and their conclusions from major scientific organizations form the basis for much of the scientific basis for government, scientific community, media and public concern about fossil fuel use. Trillions of public and private money are currently being spent on alternative fuels to “save the planet” from increased emissions of carbon dioxide, which is critical to life on Earth. If these societies' assessments are wrong, these measures could impoverish much of the world, not to mention waste trillions of dollars. Economic damage and social unrest are already evident in some countries, including the United States. Therefore, all opinions must be based on sound science, otherwise, these societies should change their statements.

Recent publications and podcasts examining the climate statements of scientific organizations have uncovered many errors that are easily discovered by simply comparing the society’s statements to data from reliable sources such as NOAA, NASA, and others. These societies are the American Physical Society (APS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American Chemical Society (ACS), and the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

Here is an example. The AGU notes that “higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can also affect the growth and nutritional value of terrestrial plants…” Numerous studies, including measurements of terrestrial plant life and crop yields from space, have shown that, if anything, It’s the increase in carbon dioxide Increase It's all plant life and Crop production. After all, carbon dioxide is an important nutrient for plants, and the slight warming we are experiencing (probably due in part to increases in carbon dioxide) increases the growing season in temperate latitudes.

As another example, the ACS statement claims: “The frequency and intensity of extreme weather and related events, such as floods and droughts, are increasing, threatening the physical, social, and economic well-being of Americans.” The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts are measured using NOAA's Palmer Drought Index, which plots the index against year. It clearly shows that in the United States, the worst sustained droughts were in the 1930s and 1950s, and the worst sustained floods were from the 1970s to the 1990s.

Tens of thousands of scientists, including more than 10,000 with Ph.D.s, rigorously examined the evidence and concluded that a carbon dioxide-induced climate crisis is extremely unlikely. They advocate this voluntarily and publicly, adding their names to documents such as the Oregon Petition, the Clintell Climate Petition, and the CO2 Alliance. Beyond this, the Association should not ignore these professional conclusions of many of its members.

Therefore, I humbly recommend that these associations take the following actions:

1. Replace their climate claims with those where humans are most likely to have an impact on climate change, but whose importance to humans is uncertain and still being debated.
2. Eliminate statements that are clearly incorrect, as shown by comparison with readily available, reliable data.
3. In their statement they acknowledge that fossil fuels cannot be replaced in the coming decades without causing great harm to our civilization.
4. Their statement acknowledges that carbon dioxide has clear benefits for human survival, but also potential risks.

By changing their statements to more moderate and scientifically correct ones, these associations will not only help the professions they serve, but more importantly, ultimately help humanity. On the other hand, if they insist on going their own way, they will be on the wrong side of history, and future generations will not treat them kindly. Future generations may be arriving sooner than they think. With a Republican Congress and President Trump referring to the “new green scam,” these association presidents may find themselves dragged before Congress and treated like college presidents.

After all, a statement from the American Physical Society says, “Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the primary driver of global warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.” When members of Congress came up with What would the president say when a chart showed that the rate of global warming had remained constant or higher for 30 years in the early 20th century? Or when he posted a map proving that the northern forests of 4,000 years ago extended about 200 miles further north than they do today. Or suggest that 2,000 years ago the Romans had vineyards in England stretching all the way to Hadrian's Wall, thousands of years before the development of cold-climate grapes. Or when he showed evidence that Vikings were growing barley in Greenland 1,000 years ago, something that would be impossible today. This proves beyond doubt that the world has experienced many warm periods without the help of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

There are many such remarks that Congress could use to publicly shame these association presidents. As a loyal life member of APS, I hope these associations change their statements immediately before the roof collapses.

This comment was first published on american thinker January 10, 2025.

Dr. Wallace Manheimer is a life member of the American Physical Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and a member of the CO2 Alliance. He is the author of more than 150 refereed papers.

Relevant