Martin Hertzberg: Climate change science is junk science

A liberal defends Heartland.

Martin Hertzberg writes at

It is tragic that what should have been a respectful and objective evaluation of the available data on weather and climate by qualified, independent scientists, has instead degenerated into a partisan diatribe among journalists, environmentalists, historians and politicians: none of whom is qualified in either meteorology or climatology. Weather and climate are controlled by natural laws on a scale that is enormous compared to the scale of human activity. Those natural laws engender forces and motions in the Earth’s atmosphere, its oceans, and its surface that are beyond human control. Weather and climate existed long before humans appeared on Earth, and they will continue to exist in the same way long after we are gone, either individually or collectively as the human race…

While I disagree strongly with most of the political positions of the Heartland Institute, they deserve considerable credit for sponsoring a series of conferences of the world’s leading meteorologists and climatologists whose papers show clearly that the theory that human emission is causing “global warming/climate change/extreme weather phenomena” is without merit. The attempt in Orestes and Conway’s “Merchants of Doubt” to defame and to cast doubt on the integrity of those distinguished scientists, is a disservice to both science and history. For the record, I have not received one cent of financial support from either the CATO or the Heartland Institutes, and I think they are wrong in most of their other political positions.

2 thoughts on “Martin Hertzberg: Climate change science is junk science”

  1. While I agree that Climate change science is junk science, It would make more sense if you included ALL of the sources of energy that contribute to the cyclical natural climate warming and cooling. For example- are you ignoring the Earth’s Decay Heat that comes from the short and long forces of Nature, tapped by natural radioisotope decay? Are you also ignoring the heat that comes from the forces of Graviry. Are you saying that the cyclical moon’s gravity does not cause tidal energy? Just how can you justify ONLY addressing the E/M energy that radiates from the sun for the IPCC to say that Solar Insolation (E/M energy) is the SOLE Source of warming energy? How about the 12 year and 60 year cycles of warming and cooling caused by the orbit of Jupiter? and the resonance orbit with Saturn. Seems kind of funny that the peak to peak Earthly cycles, 1880, 1940, 1998, 2058… just happen to coincide with the Jupiter Saturn resonance orbit. Or why is it that the 2011 Russian Heat Wave coincided with Jupiter getting closest to Earth, and then the bad 2011 northern winter suddenly coincided with Jupiter moving further away? Go read the paper “Gravity causes Climate Change” at Climate Scientists are not the only ones using Junk Science.

  2. Blah, blah, blah. Don’t go awat mad Martin, just go away (and take the rest of the loony left with you!). Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.