Mother Pelican Journal: Data vs. Dogma: Global Warming, Extreme Weather and the Scientific Consensus, Mathias Weiss, 2017

This is a revised version of an article originally published in
Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, 21 November 2016
under a Creative Commons License

Contrary to the popular belief there is no broad consensus among scientists about the causes of the so-called climate-warming/-change and its impacts and the increasing natural disasters of all kinds.

The debate about whether the so-called anthropogenic global warming or climate change exists at all and/or is caused through increasing CO2 emissions, due to natural variations of factors such as sunlight etc., or even through large-scale geoengineering experiments in the past and present is not yet clarified in the scientific debate and is still polarizing the scientific community. There are four different camps of opinion that clash here.

First: Those who solely make the anthropogenic CO2 emissions responsible for the so-called climate change (e.g. IPCC).

Second: Those who completely deny a change of climate, and thus an anthropogenic influence as well.

Third: Those who see a non-anthropogenic influence on the climate, primarily associating it with factors such as the cyclical solar activity, water vapor, etc. as a trigger.

Fourth: Those who in general see a human influence on the climate and the environment, but inter alia allocates the changes that occur to the experiments and programs to achieve climate and weather control and to the inventions of weather and plasma weapons for the control of the planet itself as Rosalie Bertell does.

Here, Prof. Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, speaks at a Senate hearing about how inconsistent the facts for the results of the IPCC report are, and how much room is given for interpretation in the scientific debate on the causes of climate change.

Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink

Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over
the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate

It is obvious that in a political context it is consistently referred to a scientific consensus based on the reports of the IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a consensus which does not exist in this form. During the Senate hearing under oath of Sierra Club President Aaron Mair by US Senator Cruz on alleged global warming it gets obvious that a scientific discourse does not take place, and that the advocates of the first group are very reluctant to engage in such a scientific discourse. The Sierra Club is the oldest and largest environmental organization/lobby group in the United States, which argues from the standpoint of the IPCC.

Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change

The website is dedicated to this fact and has set itself the task of providing a different view on the theses and arguments of the human contribution to climate change. The daily page refers to scientific articles, press releases, economic studies, PR articles and blog entries and is divided into two columns. On the left side there are arguments and evidence that support the vision of the supposed consensus, embodied by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and assumes a significant anthropogenic warming by CO2 gas. The right side is dedicated to the skeptics and presents counterarguments and alternative arguments. To see a sample page, CLICK HERE.

It should be noted that in either case there is a view on the climate phenomena currently occurring that cannot be found in the hegemonic scientific discourse directed by the IPCC. This points to a problem which, except by Rosalie Bertell, was not identified yet.

This problem is to identify as the long and extensive history of military experiments and programs for weather and climate modification (see Flemming „Fixing the Sky“ 2010) under the premise to bring the planet and its life systems themselves „under control“ and to invent a new weapon, or rather use the planet itself as such a weapon (see Bertell, „Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War“ 2000). Additionally, in the political as in the scientific debate on climate change it is concealed that the newly developed technologies are already in military and civil use for decades now. Thereby it is possible to legitimize the use of climate engineering techniques such as the deployment of stratospheric sulfate aerosols (sulfuric acid particles) to be distributed by plane as proponents of civil Geoengineering (“Civil” geo-engineers e.g. D. Keith, L. Wood, K. Caldeira, P. Crutzen) are demanding them as an urgent measure against the alleged CO2-induced climate change and to „save the planet“.

Rosalie Bertell comments on it in her essay „Slowly wrecking our Planet“ from 2010 as follows:

„This is not to say that military experimentation causes all atmospheric events and ultimately climate change. I am just saying that it is difficult in each case to separate out the military geo-experiments from the genuine heavings of the planet! The increase in violent weather is obvious to everyone. Is Mother Earth try to send us a message of distress? Is only the civilian economy responsible for climate change? I think not!“ See Rosalie Bertell, Slowly wrecking our Planet, 2010; and Claudia von Werlhof: Remembering Rosalie Bertell (+ 14 June 2012), PBME, Toronto, 29 September 2012.


Mag. Mathias Weiss, born in 1983 in Salzburg Austria, is a PhD Student at the Department of Sociology, Faculty for Political Studies and Sociology, Innsbruck University, Austria. He attended the first international Conference on Climate Engineering „CEC14 – Critical global Discussions,“ in Berlin Germany, 2014, and is writing his thesis about the subject of „Climate Engineering vs. Civil Society.“ He is an active member of the „Planetary Movement for Mother Earth – PMME“ and at the „Research Institute for the Critique of Patriarchy and Alternative Civilizations – FIPAZ.“