The Examiner U-46 News Feed
Presentation hosted to provide another view
By Seth Hancock
The earth’s climate is changing and has always been changing naturally, that was the message from Steve Goreham who spoke for a presentation hosted by School District U-46 board member Jeanette Ward on Friday, Feb. 24 at Gail Borden Library in Elgin.
Goreham is the executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, an author of a pair of books on the subject and an advisor to the free market think-tank the Heartland Institute. According to a press release from Ward the presentation was “designed to illustrate a perspective not taught in U-46 curriculum.”
During his talk, Goreham said that there’s a “vast misdirection of resources” towards a “futile effort to stop global warming,” and those with dissenting opinions to the man-made climate change theory are being shut out of the discussion.
Rick Newton, a resident of Wayne, asked: “What needs to be done to make a reasonable impact in the world of academia so that the students have the ability to not be told ‘this is the way it is,’ but to discover and be able to digest different opinions, philosophies, and come to their own conclusions?”
“I think we need to have some debates,” Goreham said. “I’ve done a couple debates, but I get turned down 10 to 1.”
In fact, Ward initially attempted to arrange a debate between Goreham and one of the climate scientists taking part in a “National Biodiversity Teach-In” organized by Elgin High School teacher Deborah Perryman. The scientists as well as Perryman declined, scientist Katherine Hayhoe admitting Goreham’s claim she will not discuss dissenting views, thus leading to this event.
“She doesn’t want to give any credibility to the idea that climate change could be natural and not human caused,” Goreham said of Hayhoe. “Even though we now have the majority of members of congress that don’t think the theory of man-made warming is correct, plus the administration, but it’s still not a topic of debate.”
Goreham added he’s “happy to go to any university, debate any person” but “the scientific community wants to teach it, and they don’t want to be challenged on that.”
A detractor asked Goreham why he doesn’t debate in peer reviewed journals?
“Well, I want to debate them in public,” Goreham said. “They don’t want to have a debate in the journals. And there is a bias on what’s accepted. To get tenure at universities you need to accept the theory of man-made warming if you’re in a science. Most of the people who challenge it are either senior or they’ve just come out of NASA.”
Goreham added: “By the way, if you do a paper that says it’s going to warm in 50 years, and that can’t be tested empirically, I don’t really think they ought to get peer review for that, and that’s what many of these papers are.”
An example Goreham gave was a paper published that claimed based on simulations the world’s agriculture will be cut in half by 2100 which Goreham called “nonsense science.”
“Soy, wheat, soy beans, everything is going up,” Goreham said. “There’s no evidence that agriculture is being hurt by any of this warming, but this guy gets a peer review paper.”
Many supporters of the man-made theory say “climate change is real” as evidence for their claims, but Goreham said that statement is “meaningless” as dissenters aren’t denying that.
“Of course climate change is real,” Goreham said. “Global warming is real, global cooling is real. Climate change is not only real, it’s continuous. It’s been happening for the whole earth’s history.”
Goreham said “the real question is what is the size of the human contribution versus natural effects?”
The most abundant greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor, and Goreham said “most scientists” agree that 75 to 90 percent of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor. Man-made theory claims that human carbon emission as wreaking havoc on the environment, but “every day nature puts 20 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as all the earth’s industries” through ocean and volcanic emissions among other natural causes.
The man-made theory claims carbon dioxide as a pollutant, but Goreham said: “Ladies and gentlemen, that is bizarre. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It’s an odorless, harmless, invisible gas.”
Goreham noted that man-made theory proponents claim 30-year lows in North Pole ice as evidence but they ignore that the South Pole is at a 30-year high. Furthermore, the North Pole only represents one to two percent of the earth’s ice compared to 90 percent in the South Pole.
Man-made theory proponents claim there’s a scientific consensus, but Goreham refuted the 97 percent claim and said “don’t let anyone tell you about this 97 percent nonsense. Very, very inaccurate.”
Goreham noted that claim comes from a University of Illinois-Chicago survey sent to 10,000 members of the American Geophysical Union, and of the 3,100 respondents the researchers threw out all but 77. He then presented a petition refuting that signed by 31,000 scientists.
Why is having a debate on this important?
The implications of public policy are far reaching into citizens personal lives to their checkbooks. Man-made theory has led to mandates from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effecting what you drive and telling you what light bulbs you can buy, and policies have led to increased electricity bills while many different taxes have been proposed.
Goreham said that “many real world problems need solutions” like 1.2 billion people worldwide living on $1.25 a day, 800 million chronically undernourished, 2 billion without proper sanitation, 600 million with no clean drinking water, 1.4 billion with no electricity and millions dying of diseases while public policy makers are focused on a “futile” effort and using fear of environmental catastrophes to push their agenda.
Ward has been accused of smearing Perryman for accurately reporting that she refused to debate or answer questions all the while the very same people have smeared her.
One commenter on a social media post criticized members of the public who support Ward for just going to the presentation, and another implied that Ward is anti-science by asking “does she oppose science?” That commenter is a professional lobbyist while Ward holds two science degrees and works in a scientific field.