By Wallace Manheimer

Major scientific organizations’ statements on “climate change” and the conclusions therein form the basis of much of the scientific foundation for governmental, scientific, media, and public concerns on the use of fossil fuels. Trillions of public and private dollars are currently being spent on alternative fuels to “save the planet” from the alleged harm of increasing CO2, a gas which is vital for life on earth. If the evaluations of these societies are erroneous, these measures could impoverish much of the world, to say nothing of wasting trillions. Economic damage and social unrest are already evident in some countries, including the United States. It is therefore imperative for all that their views be based on sound science, and if not, these societies should change their statements.

A recent publication and podcast have examined the scientific organizations’ climate statements, and have found numerous errors, errors which are easy to find by simply comparing the societies’ statements with data from such reliable sources as NOAA, NASA, and others. These societies are the American Physical Society (APS), American Meteorological Society (AMS), National Academy of Science (NAS), American Chemical Society (ACS), and American Geophysical Union (AGU).

Here is one example. The AGU states “Greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are also affecting the growth and nutritional value of land plants…” Numerous studies, including measurements of terrestrial plant life from space, and measurements of crop production, have shown that if anything, increasing CO2 has increased both plant life and crop production. After all, CO2is a vital nutrient for plants, and the slight warming we have experienced, possibly in part due to the increased CO2, has increased the growing seasons in the temperate latitudes.

As another example, the ACS statement asserts: “Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts… are increasing in frequency and intensity, threatening Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being.”. The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts is measured by what is called NOAA’s Palmer drought index and this index is displayed as a graph of index versus year. It shows clearly, that in the United States the worst sustained droughts in the U.S. were in the 1930s and 1950s, and the worst sustained floods were in the 1970s through the 1990s.

Tens of thousands of scientists, including over 10,000 with Ph.Ds., have critically examined the evidence, and have concluded that a CO2-induced climate crisis is extremely unlikely. They have willingly and publicly asserted this, by adding their names to documents such as, the Oregon petition, Clintel Climate Petition, and the CO2 Coalition. Among other things, the societies should not ignore these, professional conclusions of many of their members.

Accordingly, and with humility, I suggest that these societies do the following:

1. Replace their climate statements with ones that say there is most likely an effect humans have on the changing climate, but its importance for humanity is uncertain and it is still being debated.
2. Eliminate statements that are demonstrably incorrect, as shown by comparison with easily available and reliable data.
3. Acknowledge in their statements that fossil fuels cannot be replaced in the next several decades without greatly endangering our civilization.
4. Acknowledge in their statements that CO2 has obvious benefit for human existence, as well as potential risks.

By changing their statements to ones that are more moderate and scientifically correct, these societies will not only be helping the professions they serve, but more important, will ultimately be aiding humanity. On the other hand, if they keep their statements as they are, they will remain on the wrong side of history, and posterity will not look kindly on them. And posterity may be arriving sooner than they think. With a Republican Congress and President Trump referring to the “green new scam,” these society presidents may find themselves hauled before Congress to receive the university president treatment.

After all, the APS statement says, “Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.” What will its president say when the congressman puts up a graph showing that for 30 years in the early decades of the 20th century, the warming rate was the same or greater? Or when he puts up a map proving that the northern forests, 4000 years ago extended about 200 miles further north worldwide than they do today. Or shows that 2000 years ago, the Romans had vineyards in England extending all the way to Hadrian’s wall, millennia before cold weather grapes had been developed. Or when he shows evidence that 1000 years ago the Vikings grew barley in Greenland, something not possible today. Surely this proves that the world had many warmer periods without the help of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

There are many such statements that Congress can quote, to very publicly humiliate these society presidents. As a committed life fellow of the APS, I hope these societies will change their statements now, before the roof collapses on them.

This commentary was first published at American Thinker on January 10, 2025.

Dr. Wallace Manheimer is a life fellow of the American Physical Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and is a member of the CO2 Coalition. He is the author of more than 150 refereed papers.

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… Australia has a wealth of coal and gas resources as well as renewable energy, so why are energy costs so high …”

Rich in resources, but Australia’s energy costs have tripled and manufacturers are hurting

…

“[The US is] pro-manufacturing, they’ve got cheap energy, they’ve got good gas supply and reserves. It’s one of the most attractive markets to invest today,” he said.

Mr Gandhi said one solution to the problem in Australia is to increase the supply of gas.

But it is already too late for many Australian manufacturers.

“If you start investing today it takes three to 10 years to bring on new gas resources … [and] manufacturers won’t survive [that long],” he said.

…

Plastics manufacturer Qenos went into administration last year blaming the lack of a reliable supply of gas and rising costs.

…

The federal government did not respond to the ABC’s questions about a decision, but a statement from a spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen blamed the coalition for the gas shortfall.

…

Bruce Robertson, a former stockbroker and fund manager who is now an independent energy consultant, said Australian manufacturers were “bleeding to death” due to high energy costs.

He blamed the gas export companies operating the export terminal in Gladstone in Queensland. 

…

Liam Wagner is an associate professor at Curtin University’s Institute for Energy Transition, researching new technology in electricity markets and how gas prices work in the eastern states.

He thinks manufacturers should focus on alternative fuels like hydrogen rather than hope for government intervention.

…

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-13/gas-energy-costs-threaten-manufacturing/104788984

The fact that nobody in government or academia seems to understand the problem, let alone have viable ideas for solving it, is bad news for what is left of the productive sectors of Australia’s economy.

Imposing a gas reserve or export quota on gas companies would at best buy a few years. Gas companies would respond to the increased risk of damaging government intervention by redirecting new gas field development elsewhere. Why should gas companies gamble on Australia’s hostile energy regulation landscape, when they can participate in Trump’s energy renaissance?

As for hydrogen, I’m not going to bother answering that one. Feel free to ask other WUWT commenters why hydrogen is a bad idea, if you genuinely believe this is a possible solution.

Packing up and relocating to the USA or Asia might save some businesses. Though given the growing string of bankruptcies, it may already be too late for many of them.

Cinders are the black pieces that are left after something such as wood or coal has burned away.  People can also burn.

There was a terrible bushfire in southeastern Australia on 6 February 1851.  Quoting from the National Museum of Australia:

In the hills west of Geelong, a man helping fight a fire disappeared. His body was later found ‘burnt to a cinder’. Another man who perished was with a group burning stubble to form a firebreak when they were caught out by a wind change. His companions scattered, but he went the wrong way.

Domesticated animals and wildlife suffered terribly. It was estimated that one million sheep and thousands of cattle were lost.

The Melbourne Argus callously noted that ‘pigs and dogs running loose were burned to death – birds were dropping down off the trees before the fire in all directions – oppossums, kangaroos, and all sorts of beasts can be had to-day ready roasted all over the bush.

Caught out by a wind change and subsequently reduced to cinders.   I cannot image anyone ever expecting that to happen to them.  The world can be so cruel.

There was a newspaper article in The Los Angeles Times, on page 4 on Thursday August 20, 1885, that described how cinders fell all over the city the day before – on August 19, 1885 – and how later, smoke filled the sky in a solid bank entirely shutting out the mountains.

The year 1895 was also a bad year for wildfires in California, apparently the worst on record.   The 1930s were a bad decade, and in Australia my Aunty Enid was living in Melbourne in January 1939 and remembers that it was so hot the tar on the roads melted – and the sky was grey from the bushfires.

The official temperature record, held by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, now show temperatures some degrees cooler for that period.   There is constant remodelling of these same temperatures, with the natural climate cycles stripped away until historical temperatures for everywhere show gradual warming consistent with how Hollywood has agreed the world should be.

There is a lesson in these fires still burning in southern California.

All that wealth, power and influence did not save Hollywood from this natural disaster.   It could have, for sure.   It is often, in the end, a question of knowledge, political will and priorities.

Bill Gammage’s book about firestick farming in Australia is entitled ‘The Biggest Estate on Earth’.  It explains how Aboriginal Australians used fire to create clever mosaics of different habitat – with extensive grassy patches and pathways, open woodlands and abundant wildlife, it evoked a country estate in England.   These are his publicists’ words, with reference to southern, now forest areas including East Gippsland that did not burn so badly in 1939 because the first settlers continued the Aboriginal practice of patchwork burning.

These same overgrown forests burnt to cinders in January 2020.

The forests of East Gippsland were described by the first European settlers to Australia in the early 1800s as ‘park-like’ and ‘clean-bottomed’, which was attributed to burning by Aborigines.   Of course, for traditional Australian Aborigines the concept of wilderness is not a cause for fond nostalgia but a land without custodians.

There was once a deep knowledge of wind and country, and a respect for history and elders.  For cycles of life.

It is one thing to have an imagination and to dream and, as they do in Hollywood, making a fortune from films about how the world should be.  But in the end, it is important to realize that after the rains, will sometimes come the floods, and after that the fires that can destroy you.

For sure they will destroy you, in real life, and also metaphorically, if you dream too big, take one too many chances after conditions have so obviously changed.  If you didn’t have a plan for when the sparks would fly, as they surely will one day.   It is virtuous.  Just know where you are in your life cycle and the life cycle of nature and community.

As families and as nations we are more prone than ever to disaster, because of the excess hubris.  It is everywhere nowadays in the West – exported from Hollywood that is now part of a city with so many suburbs in cinders.

In part because of the hubris, including from so many deluded leaders who were intent on changing the world, that they did not understand.

Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/; from Ancient Greek ὕβρις ‘pride, insolence, outrage’) describes a personality quality of extreme or excessive pride or dangerous overconfidence and complacency, often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.

It is time that as individuals, communities and as nation states we stopped and took some time to reflect on our own limitations and the extraordinary power of nature – and the cycles of life.

Where I am living, on the Tropic of Capricorn on the edge of South Pacific just across from the Keppel Islands at the Great Barrier Reef, we have had big rains and can expect even bigger sea tides – it is that time of year when the dry rivers begin to flow to sea.

Life is good here, but it won’t always be raining.

There are lessons in these fires still burning in southern California, lessons for all of us.