By Pamela Matlack-Klein

Over the past several years I have noticed a distressing tendency of highly respected scientific journals to avoid publishing papers that disagree with the IPCC’s concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change. As this notion has been arrived at with very little actual field work, rather relying heavily on computer modeling, I find it difficult to accept as “fact,” most especially in light of the findings of scientists working in the field, observing and collecting real data.To date, the majority of predictions of these models have failed to come to pass.

The Maldives stubbornly refuse to sink under the waves, (N.A. Morner), the ice pack and glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctica are not shrinking, (Nicola Scafetta and Adriano Mazzarella: “The Arctic and Antarctic Sea-Ice Area Index Records versus Measured and Modeled Temperature Data”. Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2015) and, quite contrary to public opinion (hardly acceptable scientific method), the temperature of the Earth has not risen in any statistically significant way in over a decade.

Even this Ben Santer study shows no significant warming trend for the two decades since 1995, as shown by this graph.

In the past, when this sort of bias had been allowed to creep into our lives we persecuted Galileo, condemned Darwin, and fell into the basest of errors by embracing the tenets of Eugenics! Science is defined as the free exchange of ideas, theories and hypotheses. We should not be silencing voices that question the validity of computer models based on numerous assumptions of the natural world. Have we become prescient? Are we now so good at modeling that we can predict with perfect accuracy what will happen on our Earth in ten, twenty, or fifty years in the future? I think not!

In fact, we can’t say with perfect certainty if it will be fine or rainy in the next few days. If we can’t get simple local weather conditions right using computer models, how can we hope to accurately predict the Earth’s temperature 50 or 100 years from now?

Politics and Science are poor bedfellows at best. It is time we stopped doing Science by Consensus and returned to the time-honored process of collecting data, discussing our findings with peers, and eventually proving or disproving our hypotheses and theories. Computers are extremely useful tools in our quest for knowledge of our world but they are only tools, not crystal balls!

Respectfully,
Pamela Matlack-Klein