The Post & Email by Tom Harris (Apr. 9, 2025) — [See Part 1 of this series
here.]
Climate change science is “settled,” we are told by activists, politicians, media and official science bodies. It is our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is supposedly causing a climate crisis and we must take action to prevent dangerous global warming. Allegedly, only a handful of unqualified naysayers contest this conclusion.
Besides the absurdity of the notion that humanity, at this stage in our development, could hope to “control climate change” of planet Earth, observant readers will ask: how does anyone know that there is a consensus among climate scientists that our CO2 emissions are driving global climate, let alone that they are causing a crisis? After all, the climate had been changing for billions of years before we arrived on the scene. Are all the ancient natural climate drivers suddenly being eclipsed by human CO2 emissions?
No one knows for sure, although much recent research suggests it is highly improbable. It is also true that no one knows, or even currently can know, what the so-called “consensus” is in the world climate science community about whether our CO2 emissions are causing a climate crisis.
This is because there is not known to have been a conclusive worldwide poll about the topic among the thousands of scientists from the vast array of disciplines related to understanding the causes of global climate change. In “Debunking the Climate Change Consensus,” Part 1 of this series, I demonstrated how none of the open letters and declarations from scientists and scientific organizations about climate change that NASA cites to show the supposed consensus actually address the most important question of all, namely, “Are greenhouse gas emissions from human activities causing climate change so dangerous that it is worth spending trillions of dollars to try to stop?”
And, of course, scientific theories are never proven by a show of hands anyway, no matter how scientifically esteemed those expressing their views are. If it were otherwise, the Earth would still be considered flat and space travel impossible.
And then there is the problem of national and international science bodies endorsing the global warming theory without the known support of a majority of their membership. For example, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) and a leading Canadian energy expert, “Archie” Robinson of Deep River, Ontario, explained what happened with a Royal Society (the world’s oldest scientific organisation) climate initiative supporting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report:
“the president of the Royal Society of London … drafted a resolution in favour and circulated it to other academies of science inviting co-signing. … The president of the RSC, not a member of the [RSC’s] Academy of Science, received the invitation. He considered it consistent with the position of the great majority of scientists, as repeatedly but erroneously claimed by Kyoto proponents, and so signed it. The resolution was not referred to the Academy of Science for comment, not even to its council or president.”
A similar episode happened in the United States and Russia concerning the Royal Society effort and a survey of pronouncements from other science bodies reveals that they are usually just the opinions of the groups’ executives or committees specifically appointed by the executive. The rank-and-file scientist members are rarely consulted at all.
Much More Here:
https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/04/09/thousands-of-scientists-contest-the-climate-scare/
