Climate Change

This page will present thoughts on Climate Change, from many different perspectives – e.g. climate scientists, other scientists, politicians, journalists, and laymen.

Perpetually in progress, it will include discussion, facts, as well as quotes from prominent individuals.

You tend not to hear anything from any skeptic scientists regarding climate change in the media nowadays, probably because of the idea that “97 percent of climate scientists” have done what hitherto has never been done in history – undertaken empirical research which has revealed the truth of an issue so completely, that there is no longer any need to question the theory. This either invalidates David Hume’s problem with inductive reasoning and Karl Popper’s ideas about falsification

The best we can say of a hypothesis is that up to now it has been able to show its worth, and that it has been more successful than other hypotheses although, in principle, it can never be justified, verified, or even shown to be probable

Or else it is as Mark Steyn put it: the big climate godfathers enforcing their agenda on everyone else and doing everything in their power to silence dissent. This silencing of opposition works very well, especially in our current political climate, where left-wing ideology denounces any views inconsistent with its own, and shouts big, nasty adjectives such as: ‘hater, denier, xenophobe, homophobe, transphobic, bigot, misogynist, sexist’. I expanded to many other politicised issues, but the practice of name calling is widespread – ad hominem attacks are the norm whenever there is disagreement.

In regards to the silencing of dissent from Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change, the silencing has passed way beyond the godfathers, it has been taken up by vast numbers of the public – from the media, politicians, academics outside of any physical science, to the general layman, who now actually looks at you as if you’re an imbecile if you say “what if the skeptics are right, and Climate Change is a bit of hype?”. You are treated either as a madman or equated with a conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landing was fabricated, or a holocaust denier.

The majority of these kinds of people mentioned above are all susceptible to the non-expert problem mentioned below by Scott Adams (himself a non-expert). The general alarmist attitude discounts the fact that the non-expert problem still applies to overly cautious viewpoints (the leftist environmental perspective which has a tendency, in the absence of actual expert knowledge, to say: “well, just in case we better do everything the scientists tell us to”).

First up: inspired by Brexit, an international group of individuals have founded a new organisation later last year, 2016, called Clexit, which aims to stop the ratification of International Climate treaties. Richard Lindzen has recently argued to Trump that government funding to climate science should be cut by “up to  80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up”. If you have the scientists’ funding reduced, and all the major countries withdraw from the international treaties, then a lot of the alarmism will fall apart, the field will be cleaned up, with the ones who only care about the science left.



Dr Tim Ball

“Climate change is real,” they say. Of course, that is true. Climate has been changing since the origin of the atmosphere billions of years ago, and there is nothing humans can do to stop it from changing.

– from Pagosa Daily Post; August 5, 2016

Dr Richard Lindzen

During a presentation, Lindzen said:

“the only meaningful question would be whether we are seeing anything sufficiently unusual to warrant concern and the answer to this is unambiguously no.”

He also shed some illuminating light on the problem with the religion of climate change, quoting from late philosopher Eric Hoffer:

 “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.  And those who benefit in the racket will defend it with passion.”

Here are some other recent quotes by Richard Lindzen, sourced from Climate Depot:

“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,

“Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

‘Groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.’

“Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”


Tony Abbott

29 December 2016  in The Spectator Australia:

Mr Abbott mentions how the topic of climate change was discussed at the Australia-Israel-UK Leadership Dialogue late 2016:

…the science of climate change … turns out to be far less settled than most people think.

Malcolm Roberts – One Nation Senator

The CO2 Scam – conference on November 8, 2016

Very brave of Senator Roberts, to push forward with what he outlined in his 2016 Maiden Speech.



Scott Adams –  Creator of the Dilbert cartoon

The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science

Scott Adams elucidates the problem facing the populace in regards to knowing what to think about climate change. Most interestingly, he discusses how he basically purports to agree with “97 percent of climate scientists” because to do otherwise would be career suicide. This displays how even in a democracy, one has to be careful when expressing opinions in public. You will be crucified if you publicly announce the ‘wrong’ opinion.


Richard Lindzen as reported by for The Hill, on


Climate models are like political polling.  Models are projections based, presumably, on some scientific data.  All models are fact checked based on real observed data.