I’m a little late for Earth Day 2017 (this past Saturday), but I figured there was still time to reflect on it by examining the latest news surrounding global warming and climate change.

One controversy that’s been brewing is the existence of a global warming “pause”. You see, there hadn’t been any noticeable global warming for over 21 years until it was announced in March of 2016 that this ‘hiatus’ was broken by a strong El Nino, spurring the warmest February on record. This pause, obviously, was problematic for global warming alarmists, providing plenty of unwanted criticism and healthy skepticism.

Therefore, it was later announced in January 2017 that the global warming pause NEVER EXISTED! Yes, a new study declared that ocean temperatures were actually warming FASTER than anyone thought. Researchers found that the alleged pause was caused by measurement errors. Old ship-based systems, for instance, were once used to measure ocean temperatures. But modern techniques use buoys, which happen to report cooler temperatures.

Supposedly, the global warming pause occurred because, as researchers switched from ship-based systems to buoys, no one took the bias into account, so the data was never corrected. But when the bias was discovered and corrected, it was determined that there was an increase of 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit (0.12 degrees Celsius) per decade since 2000.

Now the controversy takes a leap forward as an elite whistleblower exposed the study as fraudulent. Dr. John Bates, a meteorologist and climate scientist awarded a climate gold medal by President Obama, presented “irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data,” and it should not have been published by the esteemed journal, Science. Dr. Bates revealed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was determined to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by rushing the publication and exaggerating global warming in time to influence the Paris Agreement on climate change. The study was never subject to a rigorous evaluation, nor did they archive the data, or fully document the research, making it inaccessible to other scientists. He objected to the publication. But was overruled by his superiors.

Researchers produced the intended results by throwing out good data from the buoys, adjusting them upwards, and then using unreliable data from the ships. Dr. Bates said, “You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” Further, he said, “the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure,” meaning that the results cannot be repeated via the scientific method.

Not surprisingly, NOAA has agreed to replace the dataset and “substantially” revise its study.

All this done to promote the fear of global warming.

This brings me to another article demonstrating fraud in climate science. Dr. Judith Curry, a respected climate scientist at Georgia Tech, was forced to resign because of the “CRAZINESS” in climate science. She says young scientists have to decide between scientific integrity and career suicide, where one’s career can be destroyed by dissenting from climate orthodoxy.

I love some of Dr. Curry’s remarks as she appeared before the U.S. Senate, battling Senator Ed Markey on climate change. Markey tried to discredit her, but she replied, “Are you aware the IPCC and the consensus has no explanation for the increase of ice in the Antarctic?” She continued, “Are you aware that they have no explanation for the fact the rate of sea level rise from 1920 to 1950 was as large, if not larger, as it currently is?” And, “Are you aware that temperatures have been warming for more than 200 years, and, that in the 20th Century, 40 percent of the warming occurred before 1950 when carbon dioxide was not a factor in the warming?”

These are problems climate alarmists don’t like to address. No one is denying that climate changes (it always has). That’s a fact. But the fraud is the twisting of the facts to conform to a political agenda while concealing it. The ends justify the means; in order to save the earth, we must make the people around the world poorer, depriving them of basic needs. Fortunately, there are plenty of scientists willing to fight back, and I commend them.

While it’s a shame that Dr. Curry and others like her have been forced out, there’s a new tone in Washington thanks to the Trump administration. Now, climate skeptics are hopeful. “I think we’re making progress,” said William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. “I see reassuring signs.”

Happer has a gold nugget quote, illustrating the silencing of dissenting opinion: when asked if he’d voice dissent on climate change if he were younger, he said, “Oh, no, definitely not. I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn’t toe the alarmists’ company line.” Wow! Sad, but telling.

Alarmists still repeat the false narrative that 98% of scientists believe in global warming, and that it’s settled science. But what they didn’t tell you was that many of the 98% were silenced, unwilling to commit career suicide. There’s no such thing as settled science because its constantly changing based on new discoveries.

“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” said Dr. Judith Curry.

David Wojick, a government consultant, makes an excellent point, saying it’s time to shift government funding towards more useful studies like, how warming might boost crop yields or improve drought resistance.

Social scientist Bjorn Lomborg says, “Maybe now we’ll have a smarter conversation about what actually works… What has been proposed costs a fortune and does very little. With more space opening up, we can invest more into research and development into green energy. We don’t need subsidies to build something. They’ve been throwing a lot of money at projects that supposedly will cut carbon emissions but actually accomplish very little. That’s not a good idea. The funding should go to universities and research institutions; you don’t need to give it to companies to do it.”

Richard Lindzen, Professor of meteorology at MIT, however, isn’t so sure there will be a shift. “I actually doubt that,” he said. He believes the field has been so corrupted by groupthink that he wants funding stopped, not redirected. “They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up… Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

As we discovered in the past six months, there’s fake news, fake science and alternative facts. We’ve been subject to that for a long time, but I think more people are finally beginning to see it for themselves.

Included in the Earth Day celebration on Saturday was the “March for Science” in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, it didn’t seem like science was on display as much as politics and a plea to protect bad science. I think the representative crowd meant to crush dissent rather than promote good science. Bill Nye spoke and exposed his own bias, saying that we have a great many lawmakers deliberately ignoring and actively suppressing science. It’s sad to say, but Mr. Nye is the one deliberately ignoring and actively suppressing science.

I’m thankful for the work Dr. Curry and her fellow climate heretics have done, and I’m hopeful we’ll see real progress made as the scientific method proceeds as intended.