Prof. Emeritus Bryson: The Truth Matters!
The evidence is piling up through the troposphere – the “global climate crisis” is a fraud. You can call me a “climate change denier” all you want – from now on, I will call all you carbon-pimp Chicken Littles “reality deniers”.
Hat tip to Dennis Prager’s radio show for this one – from the Madison, Wisconsin Capital Times, “Local Scientist Calls Global Warming Theory Hooey”:
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week.
“However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
“It’s like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It’s just a total misplacement of emphasis,” he said. “It really isn’t science because there’s no really good scientific evidence.”
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. “Consensus doesn’t prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe.”
Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
…
So, if global warming isn’t such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
“Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?” Bryson shot back.
“There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added. “If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'”
…”There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It’s almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts.”
…
Bryson didn’t see Al Gore’s movie about global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
“Don’t make me throw up,” he said. “It is not science. It is not true.”
Flaggman's Canada 
You have to save all these posts and create an anthology about 5 years from now when this non-sense is finally recognized.
It’s oversimplifying things to say global warming is due to volcanoes (or lack thereof). The main driving factor, particularly over the early 20th century, was the increase in solar activity which steadily rose from 1900 to 1950. Temperatures closely followed solar activity so that when solar levels steadied in the 50’s, so did global temperatures. While a lack of volcano activity may have played some part in early 20th century warming, it’s had little impact on warming since 1970.
Similarly, the correlation between solar activity and temperature ends in the 70’s when a long term warming trend began for the next 30 years. Over this period, solar levels have remained steady. So the two driving causes of natural climate change over the past few millenia, solar and volcanic activity, have very little to do with the last 30 years of global warming.
Interesting, but I’m not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say that human CO2 is the culprit based on…process of elimination? That’s thin gruel.
Not quite – you can’t prove AGW in a single post so rather than bite off more than I can chew, I address the issue raised. If someone says global warming isn’t happening because of X reason and X reason has nothing to do with the last 30 years of long term warming, I feel obliged to point out the error. I am curious as to the various reasons why people are skeptical about AGW – may I ask why you think temperatures have been steadily rising the last 30 years?
“you can’t prove AGW in a single post…”
You’ve hit the nail right on the head there. Not only can you not prove it in a single post, you can’t prove it in fifty! I’ve seen the argument go back-and-forth and listened to enough experts on both sides of the issue to conclude that there simply isn’t any proof at all!
To make it perfectly clear where I stand on this issue: there’s no proof that industrial carbon emissions have a significant enough impact on climate for anyone to worry about it.
If it’s so self-evidently true, why aren’t naysayers just ignored instead of being browbeaten into believing this hooey with calls for control over everything from our lightbulbs to what goes on in our bedrooms (especially if we’re traditionally married)?
Pingback: Readers Edition » Der “Vater” der wissenschaftlichen Klimatologie bezieht Stellung zum “Klimaschwindel”
Pingback: Der “Vater” der wissenschaftlichen Klimatologie bezieht Stellung zum “Klimaschwindel” « klimanews
A lot of of people blog about this issue but you said really true words.