Climate change information disseminated to the public has a huge political filter. This can be stated with certainty by those of us who have worked in the atmospheric science field for a few decades.

Progressing from my undergraduate education in meteorology at Pennsylvania State University in the 1970s through 40 years of professional practice while earning two graduate degrees along the way, I gained a lot of insight into the accumulation and dissemination of atmospheric knowledge.

Prophecies of Climate Doom

In the 1970s, besides poor air quality, the three biggest air-related issues were depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, acid rain, and climate change. The climate change angst was in a state of flux, with a solid leaning toward the coming of the next ice age.

As the 1980s rolled in, progress was underway to limit ozone-depleting chemicals (chlorofluorocarbons) and to curtail acid rain by reducing power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, among other actions. Climate change concern was veering from cooling to warming, and the “greenhouse effect” became the popular nomenclature (later to morph into “global warming,” then “climate change” and more dire terminology).

Various international agreements and serious limitations on industrial and vehicle emissions apparently helped to limit ozone depletion and to reduce the impact of acidic rain in the 1990s and 2000s. And even air quality in the U.S. improved dramatically. Atmospheric levels of key pollutants of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and various sizes of particulate matter all measurably decreased, although challenges remained with various toxic air pollutants.

Yet because of the complexity of the climate change challenge, multitudinous prophecies of climate doom came and went without fulfillment, and efforts to control the climate languished.

Messaging of Misery

Nevertheless, the public was subjected to what seemed to be nonstop suppositions of airy Armageddon. Worse, there didn’t seem to be any balance to the messaging of misery. No allowance was afforded for alternative viewpoints such as the benefits of increasing carbon dioxide, a plant nutrient, or that warmer climes are generally better for the biosphere than colder ones.

In the 2010s, my final 10 years of professional practice were as an air pollution administrator and air quality meteorologist for a large public health department. My focus was on research and keeping track of temperature inversions, which are key to poor air quality.

A temperature inversion is a naturally occurring event in which warm upper-level air sits atop cool lower-level air. This is a stable situation because light air is above heavy air, keeping the air from circulating. With a temperature inversion just above the earth’s surface, air becomes sluggish and air pollution concentrations can really increase.

In 2019 and 2020, over several days of continuous poor air quality in the communities of the health department’s jurisdiction, the National Weather Service directed a reporter from a local television station to me for a discussion of the impact of temperature inversions on the extended period of bad air.

However, apparently because managers of the health department were worried that I would not link the poor air quality from temperature inversions to climate change, I was prohibited from addressing the science behind the incident. Instead, they went on record and on camera to say that what we were experiencing resulted from and would increase because of climate change.

Narratives Generated by “Settled Science”

Of course, as in any authentic analysis, the truth is nuanced. There is some research to support the contention of climate change’s negative impact on temperature inversions and subsequent air quality. These conclusions would fit neatly with the narratives generated by “settled science.”

However, my own recent, first-of-its-kind, peer-reviewed analysis — supported by similar climate investigations — showed mixed results as to what climate change will do to temperature inversions. My research was specific to the area of concern by the television station and would have offered a balanced, science-based view of the air quality incidents.

This example of government heavy-handedness on the reporting of dispassionate scientific findings — one of many — confirms that the public is right to be apprehensive of official proclamations whenever qualified professionals are strongly discouraged and even prevented from challenging dubious “settled science.”

Anthony J. Sadar is an adjunct associate professor of science at Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. He is a certified consulting meteorologist with more than 40 years of experience in air quality practice and science education.

Originally published at WashingtonTimes.com. Reprinted with permission.