The voices of dissent over what’s accepted as climate science are getting louder.
STATE Scene rarely resorts to the self-congratulatory phrase, "You read it here first", even when it's warranted.
On this occasion, however, an exception is made. So here goes ... you read it here first.
While recently studying the home page of African-American economist Walter E Williams of George Mason University, I noticed a story headlined, '31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs'.
Another click and up popped the petition which reads: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in December 1997, and any other similar proposals.
"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption to the earth's climate.
"Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth."
Hands up anyone who has ever had the opportunity to read that. If no hands, then you read it here first.
Why hasn't our tabloid media ever reported, not to mention highlighted, this? What about our politicians?
Why haven't Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong ever mentioned it?
Why won't the Liberal leadership of Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop ever mention it?
Why are all four so determined to impose an immensely costly mega-tax upon Australian working families, disguised as the Emissions Trading Scheme, when it's unnecessary?
Why do they ignore the advice of tens of thousands of scientists who warn against limiting carbon, thereby denying humanity "many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth?"
Why have these four politicians, none of them scientifically trained, joined the hysteria bandwagon that got rolling via the efforts of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
Why are they so selective in who they'll listen to and support? That's the crucial question. Is it because thinking scientifically is beyond them?
Back to Professor Williams' eye-opening website.
Sure enough there are other interesting finds, including one headlined, 'Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report'.
So the 31,478-strong American scientist avalanche keeps growing.
Yet not a whimper from Messrs Rudd, Turnbull and Ms Wong or Ms Bishop, all doggedly determined to impose a mega-tax upon working Australians justified by cherry-picking the writings of UN and deep green-oriented individuals.
It's worth remembering the sub-headline says that 59 other scientists - from countries including, Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, and the US - had spoken out against the climate hysteria.
"And many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, US Navy, US Defense Department, Energy Department, US Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, US Naval Academy and Environmental Protection Agency," it said.
It further said that Japanese geologist, Shigenori Maruyama of the Tokyo Institute of Technology's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, and author of more than 125 scientific publications, suggested widespread skepticism prevailed among his colleagues about the IPCC's latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century was 'very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'.
Dr Maruyama said when this came up at a 2009 Japan Geo-science Union symposium: "The result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report."
Award-winning Princeton University physicist Robert Austin - who has 170 scientific papers to his name and is an elected member of the US National Academy of Sciences, said: "Unfortunately, climate science has become political science. It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best," he said.
Let's quote four more named in the article.
United Nations scientist Steven Japar, a PhD in atmospheric chemistry and associated with the IPCC's second and third reports and author of 82 peer-reviewed publications, said: "Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent.
"This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Mathematical physicist Frank Tipler of Tulane University, New Orleans, and author of 58 peer-reviewed publications plus five books, ridiculed the idea of man-made climate claims.
"Whether the ice caps melt, or expand - whatever happens - the anthropogenic global warming theorists claim it confirms their theory," he said.
British botanist, famed environmental campaigner, former Durham University lecturer and host of a popular television wildlife series, David Bellamy, said the international promotion of man-made global warming fears was coming to an end.
"The -science has, quite simply, gone awry," he said.
"In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science."
Incidentally, Professor Bellamy met Perth scientist David Archibald when here last year to discuss Mr Archibald's book - Solar Cycle 24: Why the world will continue cooling and why carbon dioxide won't make a detectable difference - which exposes the phony climate hysteria.
Award-winning NASA atmospheric scientist Willliam Vaughan said: "The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the sun and its effect on the earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities."
With our political leaders having gone so far off the rails, how has the media been performing?
Here are two comments in that article on Professor Williams' web site, under the heading 'Journalistic malpractice'.
Chemistry professor Mark Campbell, at the US Naval Academy, Annapolis, who has published many studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics pertaining to methane, has a low regard for the media's promotion of baseless climate hysteria.
"The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice ... the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical," he said.
"Scientists across the globe are catching on - global warming is not real science," chemist, Max Strozier, said in an email to staff of the US Environment and Public Works Committee.
"There is a sucker born every minute who believes in it, and Al Gore is playing the role of [the great American circus promoter] P T Barnum."
Interestingly, Mr Rudd's choice to represent Australia in Europe, Brendon Nelson, seems to have views at odds with the government on this issue.
He told Liberal colleagues during his valedictory address last month that public opinion was moving against the hysterical and obsessive Rudd-Wong climate stance and warned Liberals against acting like "intellectual lemmings" on this issue.
Hopefully Mr Turnbull and Ms Bishop listened attentively, something you can guarantee Mr Rudd and Ms Wong are unlikely to ever do.