Conservative skeptic warns lawmakers about climate science

Posted February 6, 2013
Updated February 7, 2013

At least three lawmakers were among about 60 people on hand today for a special presentation on climate science by John Droz.

Droz is a well-known figure in conservative circles. He’s a senior fellow at the right-wing think tank American Tradition Institute, a group that targets environmental regulation, as well as a featured speaker for the John Locke Foundation. He was invited to address lawmakers by Onslow Republican George Cleveland.

In his lecture, Droz told lawmakers that current environmental science, especially in regards to climate change, is “faith-based” and at odds with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

“We and our students are being brainwashed to accept a new secular religion with its own value system,” he warned. “Sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

John Droz Lawmakers hear from climate change skeptic

Droz is a retired solid-state physicist and realtor with no formal background or peer-reviewed research in climate science, environmental science, or geology.

In fact, his presentation, available here, dismisses the peer-review process as inconsequential at best and misleading at worst, and says misconduct among published scientists is increasing rapidly.

“We are telling these degree people that they need to follow the scientific process,” said Droz.  

After his talk, Droz said he would sum up his message to lawmakers in two parts. “We do have science and environmental issues facing us. We need to use real science to solve this.”

Asked what he means by real science, Droz said, “Real science has nothing to do with consensus, as an example. That’s not real science. Science is based on the scientific method, or scientific process. It includes four elements we explained in our talk there - comprehensive, independent, transparent, and empirical.”

Droz played a role in last year's bill banning the state from recognizing or using scientific projections of rising sea levels.

Environmentalists and scientists say Droz, not climate science, is the problem.

“At least he accurately titled his presentation “Science under attack,” quipped Derb Carter with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

“Mr. Droz’s perspectives are not only outside the mainstream view but on the very fringe,” Carter said. “With so many world renowned scientists in North Carolina, that the legislature would invite him for a lecture on climate change shows what a sad situation we are in.”

Scientist Sam Pearsall, recently retired from the Environmental Defense Fund, is one of those “degree people,” with a PhD in ecology.

“Mr. Droz spoke for the better part of an hour as he argued that America's scientific community has been corrupted by the adoption of bad scientific method and the use of non-scientific propaganda. He failed in his purpose entirely,” Pearsall said.

“Instead, he delivered an anti-scientific, propagandistic speech in which his own arguments demonstrated every fallacy he claimed to warn against. He presented no facts to support his own case. Meanwhile, he also made absolutely no case that climate change is not happening, nor that it is not urgent, nor that it is not caused by human combustion of fossil fuels.”

“There was no science in his talk,” said Pearsall. “On the whole, it was entertaining, not informative, and potentially dangerous to the gullible.”


This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • mvoiland Feb 11, 2013

    That an unqualified biased hired gun like Droz was invited to speak before the NC General Assembly on climate change is further evidence that the state's current legislative leadership lacks the intelligence and wisdom to guide/set North Carolina policy on environmental matters. At every turn, it seems that the state is moving away from being a leader among southern states in enlightened thought, planning, and actions. Rather, North Carolina continues to devolve into a regressive laughingstock of state government.

  • westernwake1 Feb 8, 2013

    Some more material that folks should watch from British public television Channel 4.

    The Great Global Warming Swindle -

  • aaprjohn Feb 8, 2013


    It would seem that you should be happy that I read, and am open to listening to people with ALL viewpoints. Yet you seem to be complaining that I cited quotes from both sides of the spectrum?

    If you take the time to actually study my slides, you'll see that a key point made is that we should be discussing CONTENT, not the source. When Dr. Muller (for example) says something insightful, I'll quote him. When it is otherwise, I won't.

  • im4frwrks Feb 7, 2013

    To urbinato (whomever you are); Not sure if you are purposefully trying to mislead others or if you just do shoddy research, but you information on Muller is a bit off. As far back as 2003 Muller acknowledged being a global warming advocate when he tried to put a good face on the hockey stick debacle (Soon & Baliunas controversy)by saying that it was good for the [cause] by "breaking the hockey stick." The NYT article he wrote in 2012 is in contradiction to his 2003 statements. Maybe he just forgot, or maybe it was incorrect like his claims about polygraphs while at MIT contrary to the National Academy or Science's position. Or perhaps because of the $635,000 in grants he received as of 2011 for his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project intended to further the global warming 'cause.' Contrary to his pronouncements in the NYT, Muller has never been a skeptic. Show me a scientific paper of his with that position.

  • urbinato Feb 7, 2013

    Hi Mr Droz aka aaprjohn, You quote Dr. Richard Muller. He's long been a climate skeptic, like you. He actually set out to study the issue and last year he wrote in the NY Times:

    "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

    In addition, your citations included: "a conservative Australian magazine that was involved in a scandal over publishing fraudulent science; and the Institute for Creation Research, a Texas outfit that rejects evolution and promotes Biblical creationism and the notion that "All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week."

  • aaprjohn Feb 7, 2013


    I appreciate your perspective from the choir, but why not read the presentation I made before casting all those aspersions? At the end of that there are six pages of references.

    For example, it includes a citation to "http://tinyurl.com/y9jrjaf" which has over 1100 peer-reviewed reports (which is evidently what you believe in).

    Please also see EnergyPresentation.Info which will give you a technical assessment of the energy situation.

    Then write back, making sure to list your degrees and experience with energy and environmental matters.

  • im4frwrks Feb 7, 2013

    @an environmental religious belief system? and you expect to have a real converstation about this? for the people
    ROFLOL; I'd say that it is you that is unable to have a serious discussion. You have complete faith in what others (on one side of the issue) have said, but discount those who disagree with you. You obviously have no credentials to even discuss the topic, so you believe in the opinions of others that support your beliefs. You can't cite scientific evidence (facts) that support your side of the argument (only what someone else has said), and explain scientifically what those who disagree with you have to say. You accept based on blind faith in someone you don't even know. You can call that "blind faith" anything you want but it is NOT science.

  • aaprjohn Feb 7, 2013

    I realize that the writer is offended that I have challenged her religious beliefs.

    It would be nice if she had chosen to write a piece with fewer misrepresentations.

    For example she implies that I said “Sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” where it was clearly stated that this was a quote from Dr. Carl Sagan.

    I said nothing about "environmental science" being "at odds with the Judeo-Christian tradition"

    I said that some mainstream environment leaders were promoting such ideology as "the end justifies the means" which is contrary to the Ten Commandments.

    I cited several examples where that was so, that she failed to mention.

    The writer unwittingly supports that contention herself, as she apparently believes that perverting what I said is because she is the arbiter of what is right — so conveying false information about me is OK as "the end justifies the means."

    Read the PDF at "ScienceUnderAssault.Info".

  • for the people Feb 7, 2013

    @because it is against your environmental religious belief system

    an environmental religious belief system? and you expect to have a real converstation about this?

  • westernwake1 Feb 7, 2013

    "there are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed scientific documentation on this problem." -

    Back in the 1970s, there were plenty of peer reviewed papers that stated global cooling was going to end the earth by Year 2000 and that we were facing the next ice age. Back in the 1970s global cooling was an "accepted fact" and taught in schools and hyped in the media.

    At stated many times before, peer review does screen the material as being factual. Peer review is used to determine the acceptability of the finding - not the validity of the finding. The most important factor in peer reviews is not offending anyone involved in funding the research at the institution.

    The U.S government spends over $4 Billion per year funding global warming research. Over $50B has been spend worldwide promoting global warming over the past few years.