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.”
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.”




![[READ STORY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/national_world/national/2013/05/14/12445890/12446751-1368816960-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2013/05/13/12441232/hahn-100x75.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/28/12278304/LNL-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/traffic/2009/07/23/5645694/beltline-100x75.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/04/12182235/12182236-1362457268-100x75.jpg)







WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
February 11, 2013 3:08 p.m.
The Great Global Warming Swindle - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
February 8, 2013 10:00 a.m.
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.
February 8, 2013 6:22 a.m.
February 7, 2013 9:58 p.m.
"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."
February 7, 2013 7:15 p.m.
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.
February 7, 2013 5:51 p.m.
February 7, 2013 12:52 p.m.
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".
February 7, 2013 11:24 a.m.
an environmental religious belief system? and you expect to have a real converstation about this?
February 7, 2013 11:14 a.m.
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.
February 7, 2013 11:00 a.m.