Future prospects - Ice Ages and Interglacials: Measurements, Interpretation, and Models - page 323

One of the great achievements of the Internet is that any moron or any expert
can voice his or her opinion. Indeed, there are plenty of both on the Internet, with
a great preponderance of the former.
When searching for material on the Internet about any subject, one typically
begins with Google. Google prioritizes its responses to any query in proportion to
the number of links to any given site. It interprets links to a site as evidence of the
site's importance and influence—a vote of confidence by the public. Thus, institu-
tions and organizations tend to be at the top of the response list, while websites by
individuals are often buried deep in the response list. As a result, the public is
increasingly exposed primarily to orthodox institutional viewpoints.
As it turns out, the majority of paleoclimatologists accept the thesis widely
promulgated by Al Gore, the U. N., NOAA, the National Academy of Sciences,
and other predominant organizations that CO 2 emissions were the sole or major
cause of global warming in the 20th century and this warming will increase in the
21st century in proportion to further emissions. Several noted climatologists have
predicted that global warming will prevent the next ice age from occurring. This is
the orthodox institutional viewpoint that is taught to schoolchildren and widely
promulgated by academia. Similarly, the orthodox institutional viewpoint is that
the astronomical theory explains the occurrence of ice ages, and you can find a
thousand instances where this is stated as a proven fact. As institutions and
organizations continue to dominate over individuals in these matters, a consensus
builds up on each topic. 4 Furthermore, the global-warming alarmists proclaim
their majority as evidence that they are correct. Oreskes (2004) built her entire
argument in favor of anthropogenic global warming on the numbers and prestige
of those who support the hypothesis, rather than the scientific basis for it. In fact,
she does not appear to be familiar with the science underlying the belief. Further-
more, the degree of consensus has been exaggerated (Schulte, 2008), and the
paleoclimatic cabal has managed to prevent publication of contrary views. For
example, a major work that rebuts the CO 2 thesis is only available on the Internet
as a blog (Idso, 2008).
As Lindzen (2008) pointed out, the field of climatology is a rather ''small
weak field'' and the sub-field of paleoclimatology is even smaller and weaker.
Both fields have been co-opted by the environmental movement, which exploits
the fear of natural disaster. The earthquake specialists who continue to warn ''the
4 An anecdote illustrates the point. At the NSF workshop Reversing Global Warming: Chemical
Recycling and Utilization of CO 2 I presented a talk showing why the hockey stick
representation of past temperatures was incorrect. A representative of the NSF, Jennifer
Grasswick, raised a question at the end of my talk. She asked: ''Why should I believe you when
the National Academy of Sciences says otherwise?'' She was relying on the institution over the
individual. Ignoring the data that I presented, she fell back on reliance on the consensus. The
issue was no longer whether my data and analysis were accurate but, rather, whether more
prestigious organizations took a contrary position. Ayn Rand must be turning in her grave!
While I was giving my talk, one attendee of the alarmist persuasion stomped out the meeting
hall audibly cursing.