Experts Smeared by Media and Greenpeace for Debunking Global Warming


A not so funny, but somewhat predictable, event occurred after Dr. Matt Briggs co-authored a major peer-reviewed climate physics paper that exposed significant errors in the billion-dollar computer models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Briggs and his colleagues were smeared by the New York Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe because the revealed errors suggest that there is no climate crisis after all.

Dr. Briggs joined Breitbart News Executive Chairman, Stephen K. Bannon, on Breitbart News Sunday and explained that he, lead author Lord Monckton, physicist Dr. Willie Soon, and David Legates, professor of Geography at the University of Delaware, developed a simple climate model that exposed the errors in the more complex computer models used by the IPCC. The report was released in a joint article titled: “Why Models Run Hot: Results from An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model.”

Dr. Briggs, who has a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics from Cornell, was assistant editor for the Monthly Weather Review, and is widely published on matters concerning climate. He explained that for decades “the computer climate models on which the IPCC and others rely, make forecasts where the temperature will be way up there. But, the reality is the temperature has been way down here. So these models are running hot!”

The reason that the models are running hot is based on a “firm scientific principle,” says Briggs. “If a model is making bad predictions, which these climate models are, the theory that underlies them must be wrong. So these models must be wrong.”

Briggs explained that atmospheric reaction to carbon dioxide, known as climate sensitivity, is probably too high for these models. “If you take this climate sensitivity model and tone it down, you get a much closer match to reality.” He contends that the computer models are overcompensating for the addition of CO2’s to the atmosphere.

Although their findings weren’t that controversial scientifically, it was “unwelcome news” to the IPCC and other “Global Warmists”—“and that’s when the whole thing began to blow-up,” Briggs said.

Chairman Bannon asked Briggs how he reacts to all the “smug” entertainers, celebrities, personalities, and others who assert that global warming is a settled science. Briggs responded by explaining that what is settled, “is the fundamental, unshakable scientific principle, that if you have a theory that makes bad predictions, that theory must be wrong. And we have had lousy predictions from these climate models for years and years and years. Something must be wrong. This is undeniable.”

Briggs  elaborated that his paper has been downloaded 10,000 times, making it one of the most downloaded reports on climate change ever. But the statistician acknowledged that a lot of money and careers are on the line, largely relying on the premise that the planet is heating up.

Consequently, he said, reporters from the aforementioned media outlets have done their best to smear the authors’ names. Moreover, they made attempts to get Soon and Legates fired from their jobs. Accusations were made that the authors wrote the paper for financial gains. Yet, no money was ever given or received for writing it. Briggs said the reporters “did not want to believe the truth I was telling them.”

Greenpeace was able to access all of eminent solar physicist Willie Soon’s emails from his employer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center regarding the paper. But they found nothing suggesting any kind of foul play, deception or receiving of illegal funds.  Mr. Bannon mocked the Harvard-Smithsonian center for having released Soon’s correspondence, sarcastically referring to the institution as a “profiles in courage” for providing all of Soon’s private emails.

Eventually, Greenpeace sent the emails to the media in a desperate attempt to unveil some sort of mistake in the study, or deception on the part of the authors. Bannon observed, “so they were trying to smear you, ruin your reputations?”  Briggs said that they tried, but every point was refuted entirely.

Briggs emphasized that “if you don’t remember anything else from this radio program listen to this: If you have a theory and that theory makes bad predictions, that theory is in error….Climate forecasters have made, for decades, lousy predictions. They are therefore in error….People should not rely on them to make decisions. Certainly, they should not rely on them to make legislation.”


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.