Fantastic article - the tides are a changin', and I am not talking about virtually nonexistent (for any and all practical purposes - 1.2 mm a year and has been doing this since the recovery from the mini ice age), I am going to cut and past a lot here, a bad habit of mine, but for those that just want some key points - just know that there is a LOT more in the article... it's encouraging when the equivalent of our National Academy of lobbyist (oops I meant of sciences), in the UK, the Royal society, has had so much push back by members of their organization, that the are being forced to go back and revise not only their public statements about man made climate change, but seriously debate the science that has never been debated - this statement is so crucial - there was not scientific debate of any kind among members of organizations that we are supposed to count on for debate.
In fact the "science" of AGW was resurrected from a very old and dismissed thoery, and from Margaret Thatcher, who was a skeptic in private, but was trying to break coal unions - political from the start... the UN followed, and ADOPTED THE FIRST TREATY before any scientific studies and debates ever took place!! that is a fact, unless you use the two second rate colleges that Thatcher enlisted to giver her what she needed - little know fact, their findings were NEGATIVE, that man's tiny input of c02 to an already trace gas, essential for all life on our planet, but in such small quantities we used to think we had no c02 in our atmosphere until photosynthesis was elucidated.. Anyway, here we go - please bypass my cut and paste and read the entire article if you have time.
"....Here is how it has worked. The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists "soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials." Physicists at Europe's most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked. This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof -- by a team of 63 scientists at CERN -- that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans. But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."
As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution -- whose previous president declared that "the debate on climate change is over" -- "is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. ... The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause." Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, "One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective."
"In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver:
"Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible"?
"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period." - MY NOTE, if you throw out NOAA and NASA's collaborated FAKE graphs, even this change is not a linear change at all, as we had peaks in 1940 globally, and troughs in temp in the 1970 - so that tiny figure has absolutley no significance, and does not tell us if we have warmed, if he measuring is off (where are the +/- ERROR margins - every value in science has them - but for the entire globe they leave them off??
"In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
"Do a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India, but not in America."
"Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."