Former NOAA scientist from climate-change alarmist to 'denier'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A former scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has converted from a life of supporting and peddling climate-change alarmism – based on inflated temperatures to sell the idea that manmade pollution causes global warming – to become a climate-change skeptic.
“Censoring evidence, ‘fiddling’ with data and silencing skeptics were part of life at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,” WND reported . “Rex Fleming admitted that while he worked for NOAA, he attributed global warming to carbon dioxide despite ‘having doubts.’”
Enough lies …
Now, Fleming has completely disavowed the argument that carbon dioxide from emissions is causing so-called catastrophic climate change on a global scale.
“Eventually, I just read enough to realize it’s a totally wrong direction,” Fleming shared during a July 25 podcast interview with British journalist James Delingpole, according to WND. “And so – in the past 10 years, I’d say – I’ve been on the other side.”
Fleming’s findings running against popular climate science have been rejected by the science field and mainstream media, which have wholeheartedly embraced and promoted climate change alarmism – a multi-trillion-dollar agenda propagated in academia and by the green industry, so he told his account to Delingpole.
“The ‘science is settled’ … liberal media don’t want people to know there are scientists – even award-winning ones [such as Fleming] – who dispute the idea of catastrophic global warming,” Newsbusters pointed out . “Because outlets ignore and censor such scientists, curious individuals must turn to other sources such as English journalist James Delingpole’s columns or podcast, the Delingpod.”
Besides higher education, the media and alternative energy businesses, the government and the science community have done all they can to forward the climate change narrative and silence skeptics.
“The scientist … discussed manipulation of data within NOAA, accusing a few individuals of ‘fiddling’ with ocean and atmospheric data under the Obama Administration,” Newsbusters’ Joseph Valle noted from the interview. “He also brought up the prominent scientific organizations’ censorship of viewpoints by refusing to publish skeptical scientific papers.”
As part of his punishment for not pushing climate alarmism, Fleming has been blackballed by numerous news outlets and scientific publications from exposing the climate change hoax in the United States.
“His conversion … has shut him out of academic journals – despite his Ph.D. in atmospheric science,” WND informed. “The author of The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change , he told Delingpole he had to travel to Europe to have his 2018 paper on climate change peer-reviewed and published.”
Scientific evidence or science fiction?
Fleming indicated that the difference between the arguments between climate change deniers and alarmists is similar to the comparison between day and night … or fact and fiction.
“The ‘deniers’ have so much evidence, [while the global-warming believers] bring nothing to the table of scientific proof,” the excommunicated scientist told Delingpole. “All they have is hearsay. All they have is media coverage. All they have is government people saying it’s true.”
Ultimately, it’s money that keeps the climate change agenda steamrolling forward – crushing all truth that gets in its way.
“[More scientists would abandon the theory, but they are in] this groove of getting funds for huge, bigger computer systems to run these massive climate models,” Fleming insisted.“And they want their salaries to increase. They don’t want to change; [it’s] a wonderful gravy train.”
In fact, climate scientists have literally turned the facts upside-down – making their troubled theory into little more than science fiction.
“Fleming agreed with Delingpole that carbon dioxide levels historically have risen due to warm temperatures rather – than the other way around,” WND recounted.
The besieged scientist said the information climate change scientists offer defies not only science, but common sense.
“Past climates have been warm and cold and warm and cold with no changes in carbon dioxide,” Fleming stressed. “How can that be a cause when there’s no correlation?”
It was also argued on the podcast that the propagation of socialism is one of the greatest driving forces behind proponents of the “man-caused climate-change theory” as they continue to target the fossil fuel industry.
“They’re using a calamity as a measure to get people’s attention,” Fleming contended. “So, the climate is a good one to use. Because the media and scientists have wrongly – without any proof – have assumed this is the problem.”
Credentials don’t lie
Fleming’s established expertise in climatology over past half-century speaks for itself, indicating that the science community’s current refusal to embrace his findings is a major cover-up – much like how evolutionary scientists do all they can to bury scientific evidence revealed by creation scientists that proves the accuracy of the biblical account of origins and the Earth.
“Fleming is a mathematician with a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from the U. of Michigan [who] has over 50 years of experience as a scientist and manager in weather and climate research [and] has published peer-reviewed scientific papers from 1971 to 2018,” Climate Depot informed . “He has represented the Unites States of America at several international science meetings, including as the Chief Delegate at the First United States Ocean Climate Delegation to the People’s Republic of China in 1982.”
Besides his impressive credentials and leadership in the science community for decades, Fleming has been honored for forwarding scientific research, and he continues to study the climate to help people better – and accurately –understand the physical world they live in.
“[Fleming] was awarded the Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award (1980) for outstanding achievement in directing the U.S. role in the Global Weather Experiment (FGGE) [and] was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (1982) for contributions to atmospheric science,” Climate Depot added. “From his retired position as a consultant in the aerospace business, he has used his own funds to carry out research on climate issues.”
Tags
Who is online
39 visitors
“Fleming indicated that the difference between the arguments between climate change deniers and alarmists is similar to the comparison between day and night … or fact and fiction.
“The ‘deniers’ have so much evidence, [while the global-warming believers] bring nothing to the table of scientific proof,” the excommunicated scientist told Delingpole. “All they have is hearsay. All they have is media coverage. All they have is government people saying it’s true.”
Ultimately, it’s money that keeps the climate change agenda steamrolling forward – crushing all truth that gets in its way.
“[More scientists would abandon the theory, but they are in] this groove of getting funds for huge, bigger computer systems to run these massive climate models,” Fleming insisted.“And they want their salaries to increase. They don’t want to change; [it’s] a wonderful gravy train.”
In fact, climate scientists have literally turned the facts upside-down – making their troubled theory into little more than science fiction.
“Fleming agreed with Delingpole that carbon dioxide levels historically have risen due to warm temperatures rather – than the other way around,” WND recounted.
The besieged scientist said the information climate change scientists offer defies not only science, but common sense.
“Past climates have been warm and cold and warm and cold with no changes in carbon dioxide,” Fleming stressed. “How can that be a cause when there’s no correlation?”
It was also argued on the podcast that the propagation of socialism is one of the greatest driving forces behind proponents of the “man-caused climate-change theory” as they continue to target the fossil fuel industry.
“They’re using a calamity as a measure to get people’s attention,” Fleming contended. “So, the climate is a good one to use. Because the media and scientists have wrongly – without any proof – have assumed this is the problem.””
So there really is no pro science consensus regarding global warming/climate change. Only a one sided bigoted dogma that lashes out at and punishes all who dare to disagree with the elitists. For them it’s all about control.
Total BS. Agreement among climate scientists that AGW is happening is currently at 99+%. There has been no controversy on this point for over 30 years among climate scientists. There are tens of thousands of scientists doing the research, since agreement is *only* at 99+%, you can find people in the tiny minority like Fleming to support your ideologically chosen position. I mean really, why bother having scientists is you're going to chose your position ideologically and then find someone in the tiny minority to support it?
Here's some current data on this:
Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming. This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.
Actually the Competitive Enterprise Institute has filed a complaint against NASA and their totally bogus 97% number. The majority of reports actually take no position on whether climate change is majority or minority man caused. There is no pro science consensus on man caused climate change except in the bigoted closed mind of Dr. Dave Van Zandt.
Actually, you already posted about this. Actually, of the 4,000 that did take a position on climate change, 97% said AGW was happening. Climatologists publish about many different aspects of climate science. For example, scientists publishing about noise elimination in models probably won't take a position on AGW. It's not the topic of the paper. The law suit is nonsense, its purpose it to give deniers something specious to point to.
Pretty sure that there are no scientists at world nut daily. Just fossil fuel industry deniers.
Actually the CEI is a far right wing propaganda machine funded by the fossil fuel industry.
[Deleted]
CEI is actually a right center site according to our censorship board site Bible.
WND was not the source of the seeded article. They report news and have an opinion section. They are like any Media source, reporters of news not researchers
But I couldn’t seed the article from WND for some reason. I had to wait for someone else to republish it that I could seed it from to get the original message here. That’s the way it works with conservative and Christian media sources and places like Twitter, Facebook, you tube and others.
It's a shame that facts have a liberal and secular bias, isn't it?
I've no doubt he and all the other religious conservatives would be holding up the radiocarbon dating of fossils as irrefutable proof they're right if the fossils showed they were all 6,000 - 9,000 years old.
They would be triumphantly showing everyone the geological proof of a global flood event if such evidence existed and science, physics and the geological records didn't show a global flood impossible as described in the bible.
They would be giddy with excitement when showing everyone the human bones found inside the stomach of a fossilized T-Rex, but they aren't because that's never happened.
They would be premier advocates of science if it backed up their religious theories. Instead, they have to invent their own pseudo science to overwrite real science and the facts found with caveats such as "Well, we don't know the decay rates back when the universe was first formed 9,000 years ago, so maybe God slowed them down or maybe Satan zapped the bones aging them to confuse humans into believing the earth is over 4 billion years old... it could happen, nothing is impossible for God...".
““They’re using a calamity as a measure to get people’s attention,” Fleming contended. “So, the climate is a good one to use. Because the media and scientists have wrongly – without any proof – have assumed this is the problem.”
Credentials don’t lie
Fleming’s established expertise in climatology over past half-century speaks for itself, indicating that the science community’s current refusal to embrace his findings is a major cover-up – much like how evolutionary scientists do all they can to bury scientific evidence revealed by creation scientists that proves the accuracy of the biblical account of origins and the Earth.”
It’s all about denial as to who the creator of the universe, the earth, and mankind is.
It is certainly more sophisticated than that. First, science does not deny God, it just has no sentient creator hypothesis given there is no evidence upon which to base the hypothesis. The best hypotheses for the origin of the universe are all based upon extrapolation of known physics. Up to now, that has not lead to a sentient creator hypothesis.
Second, a sentient creator is possible and climate science (and science in general) does not deny the possibility.
So, no, it is not all about denial of a creator. Creator speculation has nothing to do with this question.
If you read the seeded article they made that connection. So it is a part of this question.
I was explaining science. The fact that the author holds YEC beliefs is irrelevant. Climate science has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the planet and certainly nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Since you brought it up, the YEC belief reference discredits the seeded article.
Whom/what might that be and where is the proof? Empty claims are empty!
Another example of how climate science is being used to avoid and delay taking any action. Let's take climate change off the table. We know there is not an endless supply of fossil fuels; we are going to run out of fossil fuels in the not too distant future. We know that the easily accessible higher grade fossil fuels are being depleted at a faster rate and we know we will run out of high grade fossil fuels sooner. We know that lower grade fossil fuels are more difficult to refine for use and we know that lower grade fossil fuels does cause more pollution. At some point it is going to cost more to produce fossil fuels than we can pay for.
Fossil fuels doesn't have a future even without adding climate change into the discussion. We are going to be forced into transitioning away from fossil fuels. That is unavoidable.
We know we are all going to die. Delaying estate planning until we are dying is not a wise strategy. Failing to do any estate planning won't affect us at all; we'll be dead. Whatever happens to our estate will be someone else's problem.
we have about 400 years worth of supply of fossil fuels and we will likely have transitioned to other power sources completely in half that time.
But it's not all easily accessible or high grade. Fossil fuels are going to cost more than we can afford well before all the reserves are exhausted. Continued use of fossil fuels will cost more as the reserves are depleted. And we know that continued use of fossil fuels will require new technologies to extract and refine lower grade and less accessible deposits.
We also know that alternative energy is practical for some applications and impractical for others. Deploying alternatives where they are practical extends the availability of fossil fuels beyond 400 years.
That big fiery thing in the sky is pretty easy to harvest.
Not if the fossil fuel industry has anything to say about it.
That's not going to work. In the 70s, science was telling us exactly that and it turned out to be untrue. It's a reason people don't easily accept the claim that burning those fuels might be destroying the environment or altering the climate.
Article from 1975: The World Will Be Out of Oil by 2015
And fossil fuel extraction and refining has become more difficult and costs more today than it did in the 1970s. We are going to run out of the easily accessible high grade fossil fuels before all the reserves are depleted. And that doesn't have anything to do with climate change.
Someday, yes. Someday entropy will cease. That day is not going to be soon, though.
It's not supposed to. It has to do with the credibility of the scientific community and the opinions they disseminate through popular media. Scientists and their predictions and recommendations are wrong - a lot. They're wrong on a practically weekly basis when it comes to nutrition alone. As I just demonstrated, they were famously and fabulously wrong on fossil fuel supplies. They are frequently wrong in a variety of areas. And then there is surprise when everyone within the sound of their latest projection doesn't leap into action? They have no right to be surprised in that way or outraged.
I didn't make a science argument. I made an economic argument. And the economics does not favor a long term dependence upon fossil fuels.
It has everything to do with AGW/climate change. Don't be disingenuous.
Having to drill deeper doesn't have anything to do with climate change. Having to use fracking doesn't have anything to do with climate change. Having to haul more coal because it is lower grade doesn't have anything to do with climate change.
The easily accessible higher grade fossil fuels are being depleted at a faster rate than less accessible lower grade fossil fuels. The increasing need to utilize less accessible lower grade fossil fuels will raise the cost; that's unavoidable. And that doesn't have anything to do with climate change.
Didn't everyone already have this conversation? Fixing instruments that weren't properly calibrated, and not making use of the flawed data they originally provided is not 'fiddling', it's what any good scientist or research team would do, and should be expected to do.
Bizarro World stuff again. The complete opposite is true.
LOL. Right. Because climate science is where the money's at. Just ask all those oil executives. Who do you think has a bigger interest in manipulating public opinion?
And right there, ladies and gentlemen, should be all the proof of bad faith quackery anyone should ever need about this guy.
Oh, of course. Socialism. Nut job boogeyman number one.
There will always be a tiny percentage of quacks, cranks and nut jobs in every field. You can find them everywhere.
This guys looks like the Michael Behe of climate science. At least Behe offers up an alternative hypothesis to natural evolution. A completely unscientific sky fairy one, but still. This article didn't offer up any alternative, just a denial. If he's so sure about it, you'd think it could have at least been mentioned, right?
Couldn't agree more.
As a paramedic, worked with a guy who just didn't care about saving lives. His idea of triage and patient care was asking for their insurance card first.
Dr. Fleming's hypothesis is the old galactic cosmic ray (GCR) effect. It is based on the fact that solar magnetic fields (emanating from the sun due to its orbital and rotational dynamics) repel GCR. The stronger the solar magnetic field, the fewer GCRs reach our atmosphere. It is hypothesized that GCRs seed clouds. Thus the more GCRs that hit our atmosphere the more clouds. The clouds then provide a protective barrier from the sun (reflecting back radiation) and thus help cool the Earth.
There you go. Strong solar magnetic field yields fewer clouds and thus heat; weaker solar magnetic field yields more clouds and thus cooler surface temperatures.
Dr. Fleming says that global warming is mostly the result of a stronger solar magnetic field.
He also claims that CO 2 has no effect on warming the Earth and that CO 2 is a consequence of a warmer surface temperature, not the effect. He just dismisses it.
So there you go. Dr. Fleming has solved the problem. He has produced models that contradict the super majority of professional climate scientists worldwide to show that CO 2 is no problem whatsoever. Further, he has restored an old hypothesis, packaged it up and is selling is as the singular smoking gun for global warming.
We can all go home now and wait for the sun to return to a weaker solar magnetic field and in result increase the clouds in the sky to shade the planet. Oh, by the way, that means we will be experiencing much cooler temperatures in the future so we better find a way to heat up the planet to compensate.
Personally, I think I will wait to see if Dr. Fleming's breakthrough gets traction in the scientific community. Unlike HA, I do not hold to a worldwide conspiracy of the scientific community all working together to lie to the world so as to continue funding for their climate research.
Ah. Skeptical Science has a page from 2007 (I think) debunking that. So it's nothing new. Some people never get the memos, apparently.
Probably explains why climate scientists have considered and rejected this hypothesis. Dr Fleming, however, sees things differently. Maybe he is a modern day Einstein.
He's been retired from NOAA since at least 2001. According to his Facebook page he has been trying to get his "denier" theories published since 2012.
The article is disingenuous, in that it implies Fleming is a highly credentialed recent convert to the denial of GW when nothing could be further from the truth. He's been fighting GW for over two decades...
Dr. Ryan Foster: A charismatic speaker who has reversed his belief on CO2 global warming theory and now understands why the climate models are wrong. He agrees to lead the team against the theory in a televised debate prior to the next elections.
Apparently he lacks a good scientific argument.
Is it possible that HA did not vet this guy before promoting him?
Funny that Rex doesn't warrant a wikipedia page yet... and has to self publish on the internet...
( He self cites too. )
( Kind of like voting up your own comments. )
I promoted no one. I simply seeded an article about him and the stupidity of man caused climate change.
Of course you did. You even proved it with your quoting comment @2:
Further, the logic of this credential flashing is flawed. If you are simply matching credentials can you imagine the aggregate credentials of worldwide climate scientists who have already considered Dr Fleming's hypothesis (solar magnetic field + GCR + cloud-cover is not a new idea; did you know that?) and found it to be incorrect?
Ironic. This is like the stupidity of biochemical evolution eh?
( I see you 'self cited' again. )
I seeded an article exposing the bigoted bias of The pro science consensus gang and how they and their kool aid drinking true believers are wrong.
It exposes nothing more than one man's opinion.
You cannot empirically prove a God, the Triumvirate, your beliefs of angels, heaven or hell
or what color koolaid you drink, to anyone on this forum
any more than the pro science consensus gang can lead you to real water and make you drink or think.
You have been at a virtual impasse with these people for what, 8 or 9 years? Longer?
Please, carry on.
Very well. I will. I haven’t been here that long. At least before on the other site they didn’t actively content control or censor much of the content that my beliefs come from be it religion, Angels, origins of man, universe, flood, or what causes global changes like you all do here.
I only vote up my comments to my ideological opposition and those same who complain about it, because they do.
I didn't notice anyone blocking you from posting these dishonest seeds, the only censorship comes when you break the CoC rules. No one is stopping you from posting all the hilariously flawed nonsense you want. If by "censor" you mean others pointing out the flaws in your laughable claims, well get used to it because that's everyone else's freedom of speech.
In comment 5.0 Split points out the problem that exists in many of your seeds.
"The article is disingenuous, in that it implies Fleming is a highly credentialed recent convert to the denial of GW when nothing could be further from the truth."
But no one is preventing you from expressing your beliefs which is why nearly everyone who frequents this site have a good handle on what you believe. You believe in a young earth, you believe Ken Hamm, you believe in an actual global flood as described in Genesis, you believe man isn't having an effect on global climate change, you believe Armageddon is right around the corner and you believe that Christianity is the one true faith. So no one is censoring your belief in Angels, flood, universe, or anything else for that matter. Just don't expect this to be some Christians only website where you get your unfounded opinions constantly reaffirmed by other like minded believers.
If you come here to express yourself, that's fine, just don't expect your opinions to be left unchallenged.
I saw a hilarious sign when I drove past a church yesterday. It said "After the Rapture, this sign will no longer change. Will you be here to notice?"
Note to self: during the next rapture hysteria, this church is the ideal place to leave an empty set of clothing.
Oh please! You're not being censored, only challenged, especially when you try to pass off your beliefs as fact or truth, even when directly contradicted by actual established facts and evidence. We just point out your errors and intellectual dishonesty. So stop playing the perpetual victim! You're Fooling No one. And if you don't want or can't take being challenged, then stop posting your disingenuous BS which you readily admit is only just your beliefs.
If he was simply expressing himself in the course of a conversation few would take issue with him. The fact is that most of his comments and seeds appear to have an underlying goal, that of spreading his beliefs to others, aka proselytizing. He's not really here to just say "Hey, this is what I believe, what do you think?". He's here to sell an agenda which is why he gets angry when he is constantly challenged and he feels like others are sabotaging his sales.
It's more like him saying: "Here's what I believe and it's factually true, regardless of what the 'pro-science' crowd says. If you disagree, you're censoring me."