A scientist whose reservations about “global warming” have been officially endorsed by tens of thousands of other scientists is accusing the U.N. of using “mob rule” to generate fear-mongering climate change reports intended to scare national leaders into submitting to its worldwide taxation schemes.
“Science has always progressed on the basis of observations, experiments, and thoughts published by individual scientists and sometimes pairs or small groups of scientific coworkers,” Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, said in a recent column in Human Events.
Except at the U.N., he said.
Robinson’s concern over the political manipulation of science earlier led him to launch the Petition Project, a compilation of more than 31,000 scientists – with more names arriving daily – who have voluntarily signed their names to the following statement:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
He said the scientific process begins with the results of individuals’ work and their distribution of their ideas.
“A few of these published articles are especially valuable; a greater number, while not remarkable, provide relative mundane studies that add to the infrastructure of science; many are not useful at all; and some are completely wrong. As individual scientists read these articles, they use their own wisdom, knowledge, and judgment to separate new information that they find valuable from information that they find of no use,” Robinson said. Eventually, the good, accurate and valuable information is advanced.
“Always, scientific progress is a result of a large number of individual decisions that trend in a specific direction,” he said.
Not so, however, at the United Nations. Especially with the organization’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has generated many of the claims of catastrophic results of man’s use of hydrocarbon fuels, including submerged coastlines and a deadly, massive expansion of African deserts.
The IPCC website boasts of sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore Jr. for “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.” It also notes its goals are to eradicate poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, improve mothers’ health, combat HIV/AIDS, ensure environmental sustainability and others.
“The IPCC provides its reports at regular intervals and they immediately become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, experts and students,” the organization itself says.
The IPCC conferences do, in fact, feature “a few hundred” people, including some with formal educations in science, some actively engaged in scientific work, some retired, holding discussions on “the entirely unsolved problem of climate prediction for time periods decades and even centuries in the future,” said Robinson, who also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter. In 1973, Robinson co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling.
“The primary requirement for selection is a willingness to participate in the United Nations’ new ‘process’ and the agenda behind it,” Robinson said. “These people study and discuss the current and past research literature concerning climate and climate prediction. … These emanations are closely observed by a very select small group of United Nations operatives.”
At the end of the meetings, “this small group of observers combines the products of the meeting into a large important-looking report – carefully editing the report so that it supports United Nations political objectives,” Robinson said. “At no time is this report submitted to the 600-plus ‘scientists.'”
The results then are distributed as “settled science,” he said, “regardless of the fact that the scientists involved do not agree upon the text. … The elite few who oversaw the meeting and interpreted its results are special. They are the U.N.’s anointed messengers of the truth.”
A spokeswoman for the United Nation’s Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon declined to respond to WND questions about the process, referring those questions to the IPCC office in Geneva. There a spokeswoman confirmed for WND the process that has a small number of specially appointed U.N. operatives write reports following “scientific” meetings.
Robinson’s petition, which includes the names of leading experts in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, also features the names of more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in their areas of expertise.
But Robinson said the U.N. operatives have fallen victim to “a peculiar and dangerous virus” infecting American public discourse.
Victims of that disease, which robs words of their meaning, also believe that “democracy” means “republic,” “gambling” becomes “investment” and “vice” becomes the “virtue of diversity,” Robinson said.
Also, “science” has become devalued.
“And nowhere is it more abused than in the United Nations, where institutionalized mob rule is called ‘science,'” he said.
“In its headlong drive to gain the power to tax and ration world energy (and thereby control world technology – sharing taxation authority with other governments in return for their support) the United Nations has created a ‘process,’ which it calls ‘science,'” he said.
In real science, however, “truths are never determined through such meetings; unsolved scientific questions are never resolved by such meetings; and scientific articles are never published unless every putative or listed author has personally approved every word of the publication,” Robinson said. “Scientific truth is never decided by meetings organized to decide which ideas are true and which are false.
“If the mob rule process of the United Nations worked, many great unsolved scientific questions could be quickly solved. United Nations observers could attend scientific meetings of cancer scientists and determined the causes and cures of cancer. With the ‘science settled,’
this scourge could be eliminated. Likewise Alzheimer’s disease, human aging, the origin of the universe, and other great unsolved problems could be solved,” Robinson wrote.
“In the present case in which United Nations apparatchiks have proclaimed that human activity is catastrophically warming the planet, the human cost of error is so great than many other scientists have become motivated to individually examine the evidence. Now, a total of more than 9,000 Americans with Ph.D.s in science and therefore professional educational credentials that, on average, equal or surpass the United Nations 600 – and a total of more than 31,000 Americans with at least B.S. degrees in science have signed a petition to the U.S. government specifically rejecting the United Nations claim that human use of hydrocarbon energy is injuring the climate,” Robinson said.
“In fact, the 31,000 scientists state that carbon dioxide released by energy production is actually beneficial to the environment,” he said.
“It is time to kill this counterproductive virus that has sickened American science and engineering, and get on with the job of expanding the American hydrocarbon and nuclear energy industries. To do less poses a terrible risk to America’s prosperity and to her future,” he said.
WND reported a surge of names was submitted to Robinson’s petition project following the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” by Gore.
The film was widely distributed and preached about the “settled science” of U.N. global warming prognosticators, Robinson said.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” Robinson said at the time.
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, concluded U.N. pronouncements notwithstanding, “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”