Cancel Climate Science – and the Scientists

By Dr. Graham Pinn

There is little debate around climate science, with the much-publicised phrase “The science is settled” used to curtail any dispute. In fact, there is considerable dispute, but it remains unpublished in scientific journals, for fear of loss of job or funding.

A recent international survey, published in The Conversation, found that over 40% of scientists were being harassed or intimidated by their institutions, with climate science being a common indication; the survey did not indicate whether those scientists were protagonist or antagonist to the theory.

There are numerous examples of authors of scientific papers, supporting the CO2 theory, refusing to release underlying details, because others might find errors in their conclusions; there are also many examples of contrary articles being rejected by editors. The “Climategate” scandal of 2009, is just one example of this worldwide phenomenon.

The usual explanation given, is that those against the climate change hypothesis are funded by the fossil fuel industry. There is no mention of the enormous government and renewable industry grants to protagonists. This distortion has led to numerous examples of senior climate scientists, having to wait ‘til retirement, before revealing their opinions. American activist/author of yesteryear, described the phenomenon 100 years ago: ”It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding”.

Brian Tucker was appointed to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 1965, and in 1988, and became the Chief of CSIRO Atmospheric Research. He was a specialist in numerical climate modelling and was aware of the errors it contained; he retired in 1992 and joined the Institute of Public affairs (IPA). In his article “The Greenhouse Panic”, in 1995, he wrote that the response to mild temperature change was excessive, with alarm more likely induced by policy-makers, than climate. He was the bane of the scientific establishment, with his pubic commentary against many scientific sacred cows. He died in 2010.

William Gray was, until retirement in 2005, Emeritus Professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University; he worked closely with the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and received various awards, including its life-time award, in 1995; he is widely considered the god-father of cyclone research. Following retirement, he wrote about climate science, and the restriction of alternative views, because of their effects on careers; he agreed the earth was warming but promoted explanations other than carbon dioxide. His subsequent research papers were rejected on grounds they were “not up to standard”. In 2011 he wrote directly to the American Meteorological Society disputing their views; he died in 2016.

William Kininmonth headed the Australian National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998. He was Australia’s delegate to the WMO, the second World Climate Conference in 1991, and was involved in negotiations for the Framework for the Convention on Climate Change in 1992-93. In retirement, he is head of the Australian Climate research Institute, a private group disputing the “settled” climate science. He is particularly concerned that there is no recognition of the planet earth’s past history, and that current computer modelling simply does not predict what we already know is happening. Unsurprisingly, he has had no publications in climate change journals, for years.

Garth Paltridge, another Australian atmospheric physicist, had a career involving many years as a chief climate scientist at CSIRO, ending in 1989. He also had attachments at the WMO, and NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). From 1991-2002, he was Professor and director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies. His work involved atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate. In 2009, he published a book title “The Climate Caper”, which did not dispute anthropogenic global warming, but believed its effect was minimal. He believes the debate (such as there is) has become highly polarised by vested interests, and that contrary information is concealed from the public.

Peter Ridd, was Professor of marine science at James Cook University, and head of its geophysical lab for 15 years; he was one who did not wait to collect his pension. In 2017, he wrote an article disputing the climate threat to the Great Barrier Reef; after lengthy litigation about academic freedom versus university directives, he was eventually fired. He has subsequently, through the IPA, written widely about the lack of debate and the distortion of scientific information

William Happer is a world-renowned US physicist. His early career was in atmospheric science, subsequently working at the US Department of Energy. He was an Emeritus Professor of physics at Princetown, until retirement in 2014. In 2015 he was co-founder of the CO2 Foundation, an organisation disputing climate science. In 2018, he was appointed to the US Security Council by Donald Trump; he resigned a year later, when it was thought his views might interfere with Trumps 2020 re-election. He and his group continue to dispute the “settled science”, and have in 2024 been re-involved with the newly re-elected President to establish “red teams” to debate climate science. Perhaps we need the same debate here?

Judith Curry was Emeritus Professor of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia University, she resigned early, in 2017, citing the “poisonous nature of debate around human- caused global warming. Her commentary had, for several years, annoyed her colleagues, with her regular target being the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). She also railed against those who disapproved of details of the Climategate scandal of 2009, being revealed. Although not an avid sceptic, she believes that questions about the science are not being adequately debated, those who question findings are labelled crackpots and ignored. Yet again, her articles are no longer published, her latest book, “Climate uncertainty and risk”, tries to elevate the debate.

Nils-Axel Morner was a Swedish geologist and geophysicist and head of paleo-geophysics at Stockholm University, he was a contributor to the IPCC until he resigned after refuting some of its statements, retiring in 2005. In 2007, he published a pamphlet entitled “The Greatest Lie Ever Told”, in which he disputed the IPCC theory of steady increase in sea levels; his views followed 50 years of research on sea-levels. In 2013 he became editor of an open-access publication on climate, it lasted only 1 year, before being shut down.

Although not a scientist, author Michael Shellenberger is a recent convert to “the dark side”. He is Professor of Politics, Censorship and Free Speech at the University of Austin, Texas. His previous, green stance on climate and the environment has been modified by the realisation that nuclear power is the only logical solution to the perceived problem; he has been ejected from the tribe! Books such as “Apocalypse Never”, in 2020, have given the general public an alternative view of the future. He is a signatory to the Westminster Declaration, warning of censorship by governments, not only with climate, but gender dysphoria, drug addiction programs, COVID 10 mandates and environmentalism.

Any discussion of the subject would not be complete without mention of our own climate stalwart, Ian Plimer, a man impossible to cancel. He is an Australian geologist, surprisingly still an Emeritus Professor at Melbourne University, with past University appointments at Adelaide and Newcastle Universities; he is an unequivocal opponent of the climate change hypothesis and has written numerous books on the subject. His views are denigrated as he has, in the past, and still has, connections with the mining industry. Although many years retired, he is still being cancelled at Australian Universities, even had an honorary doctorate cancelled at a European University. He is notable for his phrase about the debate – “They have us outnumbered but we have them outgunned”! He continues to write to put them straight!

An estimated $2 trillion was spent in the West, on CO2 mitigation in 2024, whilst levels continue to rise, predominantly with output from China, India and the Far East. These countries’ industrialisation, and the Wests de-industrialisation, have done nothing but transfer jobs and wealth.

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), an offshoot of the United Nations, was established in 1988, nominally to find the explanation for recent global warming, subsequently to find evidence it was caused by rising CO2 levels. Its role is increasingly detached from science and increasingly involved in politics and wealth redistribution. The IPCC grew out of the WMO, established to provide long-term weather prediction – still not reliable, even at 10 days! Debate is not allowed, organisations like our ABC, have never contemplated an alternative view, of which there are many.

The activist media suggests 97% of climate scientists are in agreement, ignoring the large number of scientists, disputing the theory of anthropogenic warming in The Leipzig Declaration of 1995, subsequently updated (signed by many scientists in associated fields), The Global Warming Petition Project of 1998 and 2007 (signed by 31,500 scientists), and the Manhattan Declaration of 2008 (signed by 1500 scientists). The science is not (and never will be) settled. Those in specialist fields of physics, geology and astronomy, have many doubters who are concerned about their jobs, as well as the future.

With any backsliding on climate, come new and more alarming tipping points of no return, now driven primarily by the need for reparations to “sinking” third world countries. We have already passed many such points, from alarmists such as Al Gore, or our own Tim “the dams will never fill again” Flannery; the uneventful passing of their deadlines has produced no response, or recanting.

Australia’s CSIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research, formed in 2004, was absorbed in 2014 into the Oceans and Atmosphere business unit, itself absorbed in 2022, into the Environment business unit; what happened to the science? Perhaps resolution could be obtained, as in all scientific matters, by allowing debate, rather than concealment. The COVID-19 pandemic management has revealed how hiding information created many bad outcomes, maybe it is time for open discussion; perhaps with Trump at the US helm this will, at last, occur?

---

Dr. Graham Pinn is a retired consultant physician. His career included time in the military, working for overseas aid, and in the public hospital system in Australia. He has lived and worked in 10 different countries, in Europe, the Middle East, Indian and Pacific Oceans, experiencing different cultures and life expectations.