Learn how plants respond to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations

How does rising atmospheric CO2 affect marine organisms?

Click to locate material archived on our website by topic


Does the United States Need a National Climate Science Authority?
Volume 12, Number 49: 9 December 2009

In an Editorial published in Science on 30 October 2009, Eric J. Barron - Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research located in Boulder, Colorado (USA) - wrote that "it is critical to create a single, credible, authoritative source of climate information to support decision-makers," supposedly in the United States, but effectively throughout the entire world. However, is a supposedly "authoritative source" really necessary? ... or desirable? ... or even possible, especially when it is purported to be credible?

In an ideal world, where everyone sought the truth for the sake of truth itself, such an entity may well have merit; but in the world in which we live, where such is not the case - and never has been, nor ever will be (as long as far-from-perfect mortals rule) - the establishment of such an entity could well spell disaster; for it could suppress vital facts and viewpoints that it either did not believe, did not deem worthy to be presented to the populace, or did not want to make available to them for less-than-honorable reasons.

Barron presses his case by rhetorically asking "will U.S. cities or states simply pick one climate model as a basis for decisions?" ... revealing an unsettling bias for something less than real-world facts, and indicating, perhaps, the direction in which such a climate science authority would tilt. And his stated criterion that the information the authority would provide would "be defensible as the best available" suggests that information deemed by the authority to not be "the best available" would be suppressed.

Clearly suggesting that he favors the imposition of what selected climate czars would decide about an issue, Barron states that "the level of authority required dictates that a National Climate Service be established," adding that "information from diverse federal agencies should be provided through a single portal," which only makes it that much easier for the powers that be to rule with an iron hand.

If, for example, a Climate Science Authority was currently in place, it would be telling us that "the science is settled" with respect to the climate-alarmist claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions represent the greatest threat ever to be faced by modern man and the many life forms with which we share the earth. How do we know? Because the powers that be are already saying so; and if they were in charge of a Climate Science Authority - as they would be in Barron's vision of the future - they would be squelching all opposing views, as they are currently trying to do by various other means.

Therefore, given the power it would possess and the science it could suppress, we feel that Barron's call for a National Climate Service would actually provide a disservice to our country, to the rest of the world, and even to the world of nature.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference
Barron, E.J. 2009. Beyond climate science. Science 326: 643.