Erika Johnsen

I've lately noticed that the the terms "climate change" and "global warming" have played a largely diminished in the rhetoric of the Obama administration when they justify their various taxpayer-funded renewable energy projects. The man used to be a champion of the environmental lobby's crusade against global warming, but he's been decreasingly vocal about the ostensible threat -- he only mentioned it in passing in his State of the Union on Tuesday night: "The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change." After the 'permatorium' the Obama administration had in place for so long, they are now adopting an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that ostensibly includes the development of oil and natural gas resources -- although, frankly, I'll believe it when I see a little less talk and a lot more action.

Why the slackening of warming-hysteria enthusiasm? First off, we're in a recession. When people are struggling financially, they care a lot less about intangible, highly mootable contentions like climate change -- and the political practicalities and profits to be gained from a vociferous climate-change offensive are no longer a given. Secondly, the science behind climate-change mania, and the unbiased truthfulness of the scientific community in general, are increasingly dubious, and it's getting harder to hide -- I very much recommend reading this entire article from the WSJ, signed by 16 scientists. Cui bono, indeed:

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' 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?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. ...

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. ...

Erika Johnsen

Erika Johnsen is a Web Editor for and Townhall Magazine. Follow her on Twitter @erikajohnsen.