58 Delusional Senior Military and National Security Leaders Denounce NSC Climate Panel

by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics

When someone is delusional about climate change, it makes them feel better when they join with another 57 people who are equally delusional. That is called groupthink.

Climate groupthink believes human emissions cause climate change. They have no evidence to support their belief. So, to defend themselves they attack and block those who disagree with their belief. You will notice they do not list any evidence to support their belief.

On March 5, 2019, 58 “former national security leaders” signed a letter addressed to President Trump. They claim,

“climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts.”

They sound like used-car salesmen who desperately need to sell you worn-out car. The “overwhelming majority of scientists” do not agree that humans cause climate change:

  1. The promoters of human-caused climate change do not use the scientific method. So, they are not scientists.
  2. I can count about 2000 atmospheric physicists who say we are not causing climate change. There are likely not over 4000 atmospheric physicists on the planet.
  3. The alarmist side counts ecologists, pediatricians, college sophomores, and “environmentalists” as “experts” in climate cause and effect.
  4. The number of papers has no relevance. There is no climate physics paper that shows humans cause climate change that has not violated physics. 

They say they signed their letter because they,

“are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change.”

They are concerned all right. They do not want a Presidential science panel to peer-review the scientific basis of their climate claims.

The signers say the people who disagree with them are,

“second-guessing the scientific sources used to assess the threat, such as the rigorously peer-reviewed National Climate Assessment, and applying that to national security policy.”

The National Climate Assessment (NCA) shows no evidence presents no evidence to support its claim that human CO2 causes climate change.

Read the NCA (if you want to waste your time). You will find long discussions about how climate changes and the damage climate change causes. You will find loads of cited papers. But you will find no evidence that human CO2 causes climate change.

The NCA merely ASSUMES we cause the rise in atmospheric CO2. The fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased does not prove we caused the increase. And if we do not cause the increase then we do not cause climate change. Checkmate.

My preprint and other published papers prove this NCA assumption is wrong. The last thing Americans want is their national security policy based on the National Climate Assessment.

They are the ones who morph climate science into politics.

 “Imposing a political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments that depend on them, will erode our national security.”

They say,

“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics. Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined.”

“Undermined”?

Science is based upon proving theories are wrong. They oppose climate truth because it undermines their political positions. They are afraid of a peer review. Why?

“Our national security community will not remain the best in the world if it cannot make decisions based on the best available evidence.”

“Best available evidence”?

They don’t understand scientific evidence. Their theoretical base is in the reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their theory makes wrong predictions. Therefore, their climate theory is wrong.

Statistics prove they are wrong:

  • The statistical correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and annual changes in CO2 in the atmosphere is ZERO! (See Munshi reference here.) Where there is no correlation, there is no cause and effect. There is no scientific basis to believe human CO2 causes climate change.

They are guilty of malpractice.

The signers are not climate physicists. They don’t know how to determine cause and effect for climate change. It would not matter if 10,058 government-paid dignitaries and high-ranking officials signed their letter. They would still be wrong.

The signers of the letter threaten America.

By assuming human CO2 causes dangerous climate change, they threaten our economy and our national security. Their signed letter is bad for science, bad for national security, and bad for America.

21 thoughts on “58 Delusional Senior Military and National Security Leaders Denounce NSC Climate Panel”

  1. If anything the world is now in a long term cooling trend, with less sun spot activity and several eminent true climate experts suggesting that this is part of a 170 year trend that shows up in lake bed sediment and glacier ice core samples. Proven to explain why Egypt was able to be the bread basket for the Roman Empire before lapsing back to desert, the rise and fall of the Aztec civilisation, the middle age cooling period that led to severe famines and so on. The whole “Global Warming – Climate Change” scam is just another project being pushed by the corrupt UN and the Global elites to justify a one world government, as the book “1984” by George Orwell predicted!

  2. It’s amazing that amatures and groopies are always so convinced that their positions absolutely right even though they don’t have a clue what they are talking about. Yet professionals with decades of experience and long lists of accomplishments in specific and relevant fields are always so careful about itemizing any areas of legitimate doubt and paying strict attention to margins of error when they are arguing for their positions.
    In the real world –and in the Federal Government–their are published standards of data quality! But the climate alarmists ignore them in evey published report in climatw political science.

    1. Because they can’t prove it and they’re desperate to join the false narrative that is not about climate change, but about the one world government.

  3. You don’t get 58 military and “national security” elites coming together to sign a petition against the NSC without someone organizing them!

  4. “The National Climate Assessment shows no evidence to support its claims.”

    Your claims are not supported by the evidence. The National Climate Assessment has thousand of citations. Chapter 2: Physical Drivers of Climate Change, Volume I has over 270 citations alone. You can click on the papers cites and read the evidence yourself. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

    The scientific evidence of human-caused climate change is both clear and compelling. https://science2017.globalchange.gov As are the impacts and risks of climate change. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov

    1. Dear Dave,

      Thank you for your comment. But you make a critical error in your conclusions. In science, we can never prove an idea is true, but we can prove an idea is false. There is no such thing as “overwhelming evidence” to support a theory when that theory makes even one false prediction.

      All the citations in the world do not prove human CO2 causes climate change. The IPCC and NCA theory makes many false predictions. Therefore the IPCC and NCA claim that human CO2 causes the dominant rise in atmospheric CO2 is invalid.

      Here is your challenge:

      Find among all the NCA citations any paper that shows human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. If you can find such a paper, I can show you where it makes a serious mistake in physics.

      My preprint shows how the IPCC and NCA theory is wrong.
      https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/

      My preprint shows the IPCC and the NCA theory makes wrong predictions and makes many serious mistakes in physics. Until someone shows my preprint has made errors in its conclusions, then its negation of the IPCC and NCA theories stands. Many have tried but no one has been able to show my preprint is wrong.

      1. Thank you for responding to my comment.

        I didn’t write the evidence proves human caused climate change is true. You address an argument I didn’t make. I wrote the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change is both clear and convincing.

        Your argument that “The National Climate Assessment shows no evidence to support its claims” has changed to the all the scientific evidence in the 4th National Climate Assessment is invalid because you find fault with their “predictions” and “serious mistakes in physics.”

        Your opinion does not change the fact that the 4th National Climate Assessment is supported with the evidence from papers published in respected scientific journals.

        1. Dear Dave,

          Thank you again for your comment. What evidence for human-caused climate change do you find is “clear and convincing”?

          It cannot be the number of citations because that means nothing in science.

          My preprint is much more than my “opinion”. It presents solid scientific arguments with references to peer-reviewed published papers.

          The critical factor that everyone should understand about science, but few do, is that it takes only one false prediction to totally negate a scientific theory. In science, the burden of proof is upon those who propose the theory. This means any contradiction to the theory proves the theory is false. There is no such thing as waving evidence to counter a contradiction to a theory.

          The theory claims there is a strong correlation between human CO2 emissions. This claim is easily tested. The correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and the changes in atmospheric CO2 is ZERO. This simple fact proves human CO2 emissions cannot be the cause of rising atmospheric CO2. This is not an “opinion”. Any competent statistician can repeat this calculation. This one fact proves the claimed evidence for human-caused climate change is invalid.

          So, what is left to be clear and convincing? Unless you reject the scientific method.

  5. Marcus Rönningås

    “The signers are not climate physicists. They don’t know how to determine cause and effect for climate change”
    That is most certainly correct. That does not mean they can not express their concerns given what the scientific community have known for years. You do not have to be a scientist in order to agree with science.

    1. Dear Marcus,
      Of course, anyone is free to express his or her ideas about anything. But when making a serious claim that the IPCC and NCA theory about climate change is correct, those people should understand how science works. This is especially true when the people are highly-paid, influential people on the government payroll. They have a special responsibility to examine the facts before they express their feelings.

      Your statement that “what the scientific community has known for years” is meaningless in science. Before Galileo, the scientific community had “known for years” that the earth was the center of the solar system. Before Einstein, the scientific community had “known for years” that Newton’s laws were exact and that gravity did not attract light.

      Non-scientists must learn one thing about science before they “believe” what science says. They must know that a theory is wrong if it makes even one wrong prediction. In the absence of a wrong prediction, then it is OK to believe a scientific theory. But when there is a wrong prediction, is a mistake to believe a scientific theory.

      So, we have reached the point in climate science where the basic theory proposed by the IPCC and the NCA is invalid. Now, it is time for people to understand that the IPCC and NCA climate theory is wrong.

      Please tell me how you can believe our CO2 emissions cause climate change when the statistical correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is ZERO! Science says zero correlation proves there is NO cause-effect relationship.

  6. Thank you Dr. Berry for replying to my comment. There is no reply button to click on your response so I am posting here.

    You write your assertions are more than opinion because you make “solid scientific arguments with references to peer-reviewed published papers.” Yet, you claim 4th National Climate Assessment “shows no evidence to support its claims” despite it being based on the evidence in peer-reviewed papers published in respected scientific journals.

    You write “It cannot be the number of citations because that means nothing in science.” Again you address an argument I did not make.

    You ask what evidence for human-caused climate change do you find is “clear and convincing”? Chapter 2: Physical Drivers of Climate Change, Volume I of the 4th National Climate Assessment. You can click on the papers cited and read the evidence yourself. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

    1. Dear Dave,

      Thank you for noting the references that you find convincing. Please note the following:

      The reference you cite has no discussion of how human CO2 emissions change atmospheric CO2. They avoid this discussion because they have no evidence to support their assumption that human CO2 causes the rise in atmospheric CO2.

      Throughout the document, they cherrypick data and reports to make it seem they have a solid case. However, there are many papers they refuse to cite that prove they are wrong. And, as I wrote above, when there is a contest between evidence, the theory side loses the case.

      For some examples: Figure 2.4 has been totally rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, which they ignore.

      Their discussion of the role of the sun and clouds ignores the much more persuasive evidence that solar radiation correlates with surface temperature while CO2 level does not.

      They ignore how the sun modulates incoming cosmic rays that increase cloud cover. They ignore that changes in cloud cover affect how much heat the earth absorbs much more than changes in CO2.

      Their Section 2.6.2 claims human CO2 lowers the ocean’s buffer capacity. They ignore the fact that the 14C data prove there has been no change in buffer capacity.

      But just stick to my first point: They have offered no evidence to show that human CO2 has increased atmospheric CO2. Therefore, with all their well-funded work on their report, they have lost their case.

      1. Dr. Berry, Thank you for replying to my comment.

        Since you dispute the scientific evidence in 4th National Climate Assessment, you must recognize on some level that your claim, “The National Climate Assessment shows no evidence to support its claims” to be false.

        Good bye and Good Luck.

        1. Dear Dave,

          Thank you for your several comments. You have done an admirable job of expressing your opinions. You are always welcome on this website.

          In my closing, I argue that the NCA does not address the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore, it has a giant gap in its line of evidence. This means it has presented no scientific evidence to support its claim that human CO2 causes global warming or climate change.

        2. And if human CO2 emissions cannot be the cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, an empirical fact exposed by their lack of correlation, then everything else is vaporware.

  7. A little off topic but not much—
    I just heard the news that Northwestern Energy will need to add capacity in Montana and the cost will be increased by over 500 million if it is all renewable.
    As this story develops we must get the information in Dr. Ed’s preprint to all state legislators and public service commission members. Actually, everyone in Montana should be made aware of it if we can do that.

  8. Fredeerick Colbourne

    I suggest that we should count oceanographers too, since it is the oceans, not the atmosphere, that accounts for fluctuations in climate. The atmosphere accounts for weather but does not have the heat capacity to account for climate variations. The world ocean is used as a calorimeter to assess imbalances in energy flux at the top of the atmosphere.

    Stephens, Graeme L., et al. “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 69
    “For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 – 239.7 – 99.9 Wm-2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14). This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4  Wm-2 (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12,15. Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.”

    The figure estimated by Stephens et al (0.58+/-0.4 Wm-2) was refined by Loeb et al in 2012.
    “Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50+/-0.43 Wm-2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”

    The estimates of energy imbalance seem to have been decreasing from 2005 to 2013, from 0.85 Wm-2 (Hansen, 2005) to 0.58 (Stephens) to 0.50 Wm-2 (Loeb)
    Loeb, Norman G., et al. “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.” Nature Geoscience 5.2 (2012): 110-113.

    But looking at the error bars and reading the reservations concerning the uncertainties, I do not believe the numbers tell us much for certain and I believe that the authors are trying to tell us this the best way they know how without being subject to ostracism.
    “This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux.” (Stephens)
    It doesn’t get much plainer than this: the imbalance in energy flux at the top of the atmosphere cannot be measured using current technology. Ergo, there is no empirical evidence that a positive long-term trend in such energy imbalance actually exists.
    These people have been as candid as they can be given their personal circumstances and the reluctance of journals to publish the uncertain nature of the results of climate research.

    I note that James Hansen was lead author of a similar paper in 2011 that claimed,
    “The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during the 6-yr period 2005–2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change.”
    Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., and von Schuckmann, K.: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449

    This strikes me as delusional as it gets. As Stephens implied, the equation, 0.6 = 340.2 – 239.7 – 99.9 Wm-2 requires that the errors of estimate of the fluxes be less than existing technology is capable of measuring.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.