Climate alarmists are losing the debate on man-caused
global warming and climate change. The dire scenarios predicted by their
computer modelling have failed to materialize. All of the glaring differences
between their computer-modelled temperature predictions and empirically
measured global temperature are becoming plain for everyone to see.
Advocates of man-caused climate change consistently
refer to anecdotal local and regional weather events to allege proof of their computer-modeled
hypotheses. This methodology is both disingenuous and purposely misleading. Although
memorable and newsworthy, local periodic weather events have little correlation
with global climate.
Global
temperatures have not detectably changed in nearly 20 years. Actual
measurements of the earth’s atmosphere, the earth’s oceans and the earth’s land
areas clearly refute their doomsday predictions.
During that same period, their modelled predictions of
increased severity in global weather events have also failed to occur. Empirically
measured global data shows weather events on earth have
not become more frequent or severe during the last decade.
Both storm frequency and intensity have
actually decreased by significant margins.
Moreover, the computer-modeled predictions of an enormous
rise in global sea levels did not occur. Any empirically measured increase in average
global sea levels is barely
measurable and likely not statistically significant.
These are among the many reasons why a growing
majority of Americans are questioning the alarmists’ Armageddon predictions. They
are simply losing trust in both the modeled predictions and the government-funded
propaganda.
Researchers who have reached different climate change conclusions
based upon practical empirical science are not tolerated by the climate change
advocates. The modelers refuse to debate the science in an open forum, because
they are unable to refute the practical observed empirical data. Their
alternative strategy to meaningful debate has been to attack the messenger by
labeling traditional experimental scientists as deniers, Luddites and worse.
Their ruse is no longer working with most Americans. Citizens
are beginning to harbor serious doubts. They are both asking important
questions and demanding to receive straightforward answers.
They want to know who is actually benefiting from the
irrational and crazed efforts to restructure our fossil fuel-powered economy.
They are questioning the fairness of the obscene taxpayer and utility ratepayer
subsidies that are freely flowing to huge renewable energy corporations. They are
rightly asking why governments should expect taxpayers and utility ratepayers to
pay for this brazen corporate crony capitalism.
People understand that nearly 90 percent of our
national energy needs are currently being met by the combustion of fossil
fuels. They want to know the short and long-term costs of the forced
replacement of traditional fossil fuels with grossly more expensive renewable
energy sources.
They are asking who will pay for the enormous
increases in energy cost and how poor families will be protected from
unaffordable fuel and utility bills. They want to see empirical evidence
showing how sharply increased energy costs will not cause significant job
losses, as well as serious and even irreversible harm to our state and national
economies.
Moreover, citizens are asking to see measurable,
reproducible data in support of the global warming advocates’ computer-generated
models. The climate alarmist have not produced that empirical data because they
have been unable to develop it. They have been unable to develop it because it
simply does not exist.
Perhaps for these reasons, the liberal progressive
left has recently enlisted a desperate new tactic. Incredibly, they are now
attempting to silence the scientific community through threats of sanctions,
retaliation and criminal charges. Their efforts to censor dissent is becoming more
frantic and strident.
Universities and other organizations who publish
papers that do not “toe the line” of climate alarmist are routinely being
denied federal and foundation research grants. Conversely, government research
funding for the “true believers” is virtually unlimited.
Advocates for climate regulation are urging the Obama
administration to investigate research scientists who do not share their views.
Further, research organizations who either accept funding or editorial comments
from fossil fuel industries are routinely targeted for investigation by a
variety of federal agencies.
For instance, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts)
was recently successful
in driving out a "think tank scholar" who
had the temerity to accurately report how a new federal regulation would cost Americans
billions of dollars. The scholar further described how the money would flow
directly to certain highly subsidized corporations who produce various forms of
renewable energy. Apparently, his unforgiveable offense was to include
editorial comments by those who supported his research.
The double standard is alarming. I have observed many
research papers supporting man-made climate change containing more editorial than
scientific content. They often proudly and prominently report their sponsoring
benefactors.
Last month, 20
university professors signed a letter addressed to Obama, his
science advisor John Holdren and Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging
punishment for climate change dissenters. Along with U.S.
Senator Sheldon Whitehorse (D-Rhode Island), they proposed that
organizations and corporations who produce research opposing the climate change
hysteria should be prosecuted under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Incredibly, they allege the “dissenters” have violated
RICO by “knowingly deceiving” the people about the risks of climate change.
They accuse these scientists of using their findings as a means to dangerously forestall
America’s response to climate change.
In short, they assert it is a criminal act to inform
citizens of a different scientific perspective. Their method of choice is to sensor scientific
debate through RICO intimidation using the threat of huge fines and even imprisonment.
This request is akin to the inquisitions during the Dark
Ages. Will their next demand be the burning of non-conforming scientific texts?
Climate change science is rapidly losing its
credibility with the people for good reason. Being unable to sustain meaningful
scientific debate, the climate alarmists’ new efforts are focused on
discrediting and persecuting the messenger. These pathetic actions underscore
the cause for the public’s growing skepticism.
Their efforts no longer exhibit any resemblance to
science. They are gross political manipulations using deception and
misdirection for financial gain.
Thankfully, more Americans are beginning to realize
the truth. They need only “to follow the money” to learn the purpose of the climate
change strategy.
Please remember--if we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.
Best Regards, Doug
Senate District 28
Email: Sen.DougWhitsett@state.or.us I Phone: 503-986-1728 Address: 900 Court St NE, S-311, Salem, OR, 97301 Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/whitsett
|