Watching politics eat away at climate science

My annual birthday-month fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now on-going. Not only do your donations help pay my bills, they give me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Two stories today today illustrate how the field of climate science is being destroyed by politics.

In the first, a leading climate skeptic chortles over the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri, the man who has headed the IPCC since 2002, who has stepped down because of allegations of sexual harassment by an employee at the institute he heads in New Delhi. In the second, Willie Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist who has published numerous peer-reviewed papers raising questions about global warming science, is attacked for not fully disclosing the sources of his income.

In both cases, the two sides in the global warming debate are using these allegations as ammunition to attack the believability of each side’s stance on the scientific question of global warming. And in both cases, the stories raise literally no questions about the science itself that each man advocated.

I admit that I have attacked Pachauri numerous times in the past, but each time it was because he demonstrated outright ignorance of the field of climate science or had been caught making significant scientific errors. His resignation here however has nothing to do with the science published in IPCC reports, and should not be used as fodder to criticize the theory of human-caused global warming.

Similarly, none of the articles in the mainstream science press about the allegations against Soon have raised a single question about his actual results. All they have done is attack him for not revealing all of his funding sources. His research itself still appears valid. That the largest science journals, Science and Nature, have published articles attacking Soon, with the Smithsonian now piling on as well, without presenting any evidence that he had falsified any of his work, illustrates how corrupt this field has become. The science for these major science journals no longer matters. All that matters is destroying someone who was apparently successful in bursting the balloon on some global warming science.

Until everyone stops playing this game and focuses instead on the data itself and what that data is really telling us, we will get no closer to truly understanding the climate of the Earth. And tragically, I see far too little effort in the climate field to do this.



  • wodun

    Then there is this,

    “Pachauri’s resignation letter on religion: ‘For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

  • Jwing

    Is there anyone in the mainstream scientific community making a clear case for the theory that sunspot activity is the true driver of climate change?

  • No one should be making the claim “that sunspot activity is the true driver of climate change.” We don’t have enough facts to make such a claim.

    There are many scientific skeptics (including journalists such as myself) who have raised this possibility. No one however believes that the solar cycle would be the only factor. The system is too complex. We must never forget that, and stop trying to find a simple answer.

  • Jwing

    Your point is well stated and taken to heart…but I do wish there was a loud credible voice that could cut through the “group-think” BS the average person if fed in order that he/she could consider more realistic and reasonable causes for any perceived or theoretical climate hazards backed-up by objectve empirical evidence.

    I certainly don’t want the world’s economy to be fundamentally reorganized based on this lie wrapped in 1960’s hippie “feel-goodism” about caring for the environment, and I say this having a M.S. in environmental (civil) engineering.

  • D.K. Williams

    Perhaps Science and Nature should be reassigned call numbers in the political section of the Library of Congress classification system.

  • Jwing

    Exactly, it used to be that in mixed company it was always safest to talk about the weather as a conversation piece. One never brought up religion or politics, but it seems our lefty friends have managed to make even the “weather” a political issue.

    Cross reference under “J” for junk science in the Dewey Decimal System. Ah, yes…Dewey, another fine progressive.

  • Max

    “has anyone brought up the theory on sun spot activity being the cause of our climate change?”
    It is not the cause of climate change, but is definitely influential and driving the fluctuations in our climate.
    There is no doubt that drought and rain cycles in our climate mirror that of the sunspot cycle and can be predicted with some certainty in the future. I am told the farmers almanac uses such data and is correct more often than it is wrong.
    Global warming is real, and has been taking place for 16,000 years since the last Ice Age. It will continue to warm until the next global disaster. (i.e. ice/methane comet, volcanoes due to sudden continental drift, intergalactic space cloud ect.) man’s influence in the weather is but a theory.
    “Until everyone stops playing this game and focuses instead on the data itself and what that data is really telling us, we will get no closer to truly understanding the climate of the Earth.”
    I think THAT IS the point to this game! To keep us from focusing on what really matters, to hide the truth, and keep the people ignorant so Control will be easier and more efficient. To do this, The masses must be kept off balance. As Michael Chrighton said, in a state of fear.
    Economics is the driver behind all wars in the past, and is still true today. Science is only a tool in the arsenal of that game of politics for control and manipulation. Truth has no weight against agendas, that ends justify the means. With the world as the stake, winner takes all… No matter what the cost, or the sacrifices made.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *