On April 1, 2019, the American Journal of Climate Change rejected a paper by physicist Dr Ed Berry for the following reason: "The conclusion of this paper is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community." Dr Berry comments: "Yes, it is. But the journal did not forward any evidence that there is an error in my paper and did not acknowledge that my paper proves the 'consensus' is wrong. So, if it is unacceptable to publish a paper that contradicts the 'consensus' how can there be progress in science?" Read the paper here, and judge for yourself:
U.S. meteorologist Chuck Wiese has immediately supported the accuracy of Dr Berry's paper: Download ChuckWiese.pdf
"The latest well-known person exploited in this way is documentary producer Sir David Attenborough, who was taken in by the false story of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It appears he let his socialist views over-ride any sense of science he might have. The trouble is he doesn’t appear to have any science training. He is an English Grammar School graduate who identifies himself as a naturalist. This is like the practice of people identifying themselves as environmentalists." Dr Tim Ball posts at 'WattsUpWIthThat'.
Dr Timothy Ball and Tom Harris post at 'America Outloud': " A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe. The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature.
This paper by Mark P. Mills at the Manhattan Institute highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”
Australian climate analyst John McLean [posts at American Thinker: "When governments' policies are based on science, then it's up to the governments to first determine if the science is solid. It would simply be irresponsible of any government not to do so.Testing the evidence requires an open, impartial, and objective evaluation.