Aletho News


Climate “Science”: Consensus or Conformity?

An Indictment

By David Small | Climate Etc. | February 15, 2015

I started a PhD program in Environmental Engineering because I worried about climate change. It didn’t take long for me to become a skeptic.

My first paper, a study about precipitation intensity over the U.S., was rejected by reviewers because it contradicted the climate model projections. Though they could find nothing wrong with the methodology, they decided observational data must be flawed because climate models couldn’t possibly be wrong and wrote that the paper could not be published.

I then started reading the atmospheric science literature about precipitation trends. It was clear to me that the theory about changes in precipitation intensity were designed to explain climate model results that didn’t mesh with observations. When I found that changes in observed precipitation were largest in autumn, and did not find the same patterns of precipitation in climate models outputs, I really became skeptical about the use of climate models. When I started working with climate models and saw how poorly they reproduce precipitation patterns, I was forced into the realization that the “science” was being fit to the models and that the models were not very realistic. From my perspective, this runs contrary to the scientific method.

After finishing my PhD in Environmental Engineering, I earned a M.S. in Atmospheric Science and started working on a PhD. As I learned more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics, I started to see the contradictions in the climate change discussion.

I had another paper refused by a high profile journal because it showed that cold air is required to produce the conditions that cause storm surges in the western Canadian arctic. That suggestion really seemed to upset the editor (an engineer) who wouldn’t even send it out for review. My later research has shown the importance of strong jets and cold air in building the blocking ridges that cause the extreme weather we’ve seen over the last two autumns/winters. The claims that are being made that a warming of the arctic will lead to warmer conditions in the mid-latitudes because it will cause more blocking are preposterous because strong jets are needed to support the blocking ridges. I received dozens of letters saying my published paper must be wrong because I suggest that strong jets, not weak jets, cause blocking. Most of the claims being made by climate change advocates appear to run contrary to basic meteorology.

As I’ve been attacked personally and professionally for offering contrary views, I decided to leave the field. I will defend my Atmospheric Science PhD thesis and walk away. It’s become clear to me that it is not possible to undertake independent research in any area that touches upon climate change if you have to make your living as a professional scientist on government grant money or have to rely on getting tenure at a university. The massive group think that I have encountered on this topic has cost me my career, many colleagues and has damaged my reputation among the few people I know in the field.

I’m leaving to work in the financial industry. It’s a sad day when you feel that you have to leave a field that you are passionately interested in because you fear that you won’t be able to find a job once your views become widely known. Until free thought is allowed in the climate sciences, I will consider myself a skeptic of catastrophic human induced global warming.

February 17, 2015 - Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science |


  1. Exactly the same happened to students who investigate AIDS, Vaccines, Autism.
    Two medical students who tried to find (never mind verify) the fundamental research supporting the AIDS hypothesis, (that HIV compromises the immune system) were told that they would not get their doctorates unless they desisted from the investigations.
    When they started talking to other students, they were met by anger and exclusion, the other students had careers to think about, regardless of the truth.
    Try getting to the source of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, you will be fired, unless you buy into “it is all in their mind”.
    50,000 women, 40years plus all getting similar symptoms within a period of 2 -5 years and living in “clusters”, but it is “all in their minds”.
    Try being a “honest” compliance officer in a large bank. Your job is to “sign-off” on what we do as “being in compliance” not to actually make us compliant. Goodbye, your contract is terminated, good luck getting another job in compliance.
    Welcome to the real world.

    Comment by PJ London | February 17, 2015 | Reply

  2. It’s a shame that you are letting them win. If responsible, intelligent researchers allow themselves to be run out of a profession because what they say is unpopular yet true, who will ultimately benefit? The zealots who perpetuate the lie. Not only that but the scientific community at large and the underlying credibility of the scientific process will be laid bare eventually and the foundations of it now subject to question. Just thinking about the skepticism these people will cause in their, as well as many other scientific disciplines, is tragic. Nothing like a bunch of liars to boost the credibility in any field.

    On a different note I was wondering if the scientific misrepresentations have had a more practical and close-to-home effect. I’m referring to the ability of local weather stations to predict and forecast accurately. It seems to me (and this is only a notion I’ve had) that the weather stations haven’t gotten it right at an ever-increasing pace. I remember when I could set my motorcycle riding by the hour using accuweather and the local guys. Now it’s like “there will be a massive storm hitting us in a week…….okay check that, minor one…………okay probably miss us………nothing to be alarmed about anymore in fact missed us”. I know that the weather predicting capabilities are largely based on climate models and the inability to give any long-range forecasts is, just IMHO, not there anymore. Sure the 24 hour one is spot on but that’s because it’s in the immediate area. Hell I can look outside and see that. Is it just me or is there something to that?

    Comment by R. Driggers | February 18, 2015 | Reply

    • It could be that there is a bias toward creating tension. Every potential weather event is over-hyped. This would serve the AGW alarmist cause by leaving behind a sense of extreme weather events even while actual weather had been normal. It also serves to keep the viewership high for the weather service.

      It is well known that constant tension infantilizes the victim making them easily swayed by the manipulator.

      Comment by aletho | February 18, 2015 | Reply

      • So are you saying that I am incorrect and the weathermen haven’t been getting it wrong and their prediction models are in order? Not being a smart-ass, just wanting your opinion on my thoughts.

        Comment by R. Driggers | February 19, 2015 | Reply

        • It’s not an opinion on your thoughts. I have simply noticed that, National Geographic, PBS, etc. have been pushing climate change hard along with supposed increasing “extreme weather”, to the point of hype. NOA is also government sponsored and goes along to a point, but the reliability is better than

          NOA is designed to be for those who seriously need accuracy. is for the masses who settle for ease of accessibility.

          That’s much like the major newspapers. NYT, USA Today, and WAPO, are all propaganda outlets. Wall Street Journal and FT are too in their opinion pieces and much analysis. But WSJ and FT sometimes reflect reality better because they can’t blatantly deceive their readers on many vital issues. For example they didn’t really push the fraudulent “peak oil” to near the extent and offered more balanced coverage.

          Media for the masses is blatantly engaged in social engineering, it functions as a “stovepipe” that funnels memes and disinformation directly from the Pentagon, State Dept., FDA, etc…

          Strategy of tension goes far beyond terror attacks. It’s purpose is for the public to seek succor from the state and to be supplicant or childlike before authorities.

          Comment by aletho | February 19, 2015 | Reply

          • I’m well aware of the propaganda machine the Fourth Estate has become. Being private entities makes them beholden to none insofar as legally setting standards and forcing objective behavior. It was noted by many that the country we lived in died in the nineties with the deregulation of cross-ownership of media outlets. I agree with this sentiment; much more objectivity was present when companies in a town or city were barred from owning any media outlet in a different medium than they already were (i.e. radio couldn’t own television or print in the same area). This kept the media somewhat in check.

            The other half of the equation has to be credited to Ted Turner and his invention of the 24-hour news cycle. It was this turn in reporting that has given way to the utter disgrace we have today in the MSM. I do not even refer to it as journalism anymore. It’s all one great big editorial where I get the privilege of having some pundit translate English into English for me and telling me what someone who actually speaks my language is telling me as though I don’t understand it.

            Edward R and Walter C have undoubtedly rolled in their respective graves plenty with these clowns. My question was only referring to the seeming inaccuracy of the weathermen and posited whether they have been inaccurate based on bum information plugged into their weather-predicting-models with the now surfacing problems. It’s my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong please) that weather forecasting is nothing more than a referenced set of information being compared to a similar set at a different time. Since the conditions are similar across two different times the outcome of the future prediction can be based on already-known weather under the same circumstances and tweaked for error by the forecaster. Now if the broad data and model constructions were flawed and/or manipulated from the outset it would eventually hit in reality due to the fudging aspect. I was just thinking perhaps they are “paying the piper” as it were. Because if it’s true it would serve as yet another circumstantial reason to stop believing the myth.

            Thanks for your thoughts.

            Comment by Robert Driggers | February 21, 2015 | Reply

            • Weather prediction is really quite complex and the notion that it has been mastered is a manifestation of hubris. The same would apply to climate modeling. I think we concur on these questions.

              Comment by aletho | February 21, 2015 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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