Wednesday, December 2, 2009

That Was Then, It is Also Now

I've decided to re-post a piece that I originally wrote on June 28, 2009. I am adding some current thoughts at the end.

Shutting Down Scientists Who Oppose Global Warming

What happens to experts whose scientific opinions contradict Global Warming or Climate Change, or whatever the latest incantation is? According to the Telegraph, their more politically correct brethren shut them out:

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been studying polar bears for over thirty years. Unfortunately for Dr. Taylor, he cares more about honesty than being the messenger of a flawed political, quasi-scientific assumption. The “science of Global Warming is settled” only because opposing views have been silenced.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Over 700 of the world’s top scientists disagree with the theory of climate change. In fact, far more oppose the current theory than support it. If those who favor the theory that global warming is man made are so confident in their position, why are they so opposed to debate? I say follow the money. There are those who stand to profit greatly and those who wish to see our free market destroyed. These two factions have joined forces and unless we take a strong stand against this farce the consequences will be the devastation of our economy.

UPDATE: E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming.

From Power Line: The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.The Administration is suppressing the truth. Surprise, surprise. Read the entire post.

There has always been ample evidence that Global Warming is a crock. Granted, the hacked emails lend credence because they were written by the hucksters themselves but despite the proof of fraud, nothing too much has changed. Robert Gibbs, "the science is settled." Carol Browning, "the science is settled." Barbara Boxer wants a criminal probe of the hackers. Obama is still going to Copenhagen and no, I don't think he'll be making any bold statements about the Global Warming scam. While I certainly appreciate Sen. Inhofe's stance on ClimateGate, where is his backup in the Senate? Where is Sen. Lindsey Graham?

It is, to say the least, deeply disappointing that so few of our representatives are willing to stand up and say that in light of the emails that the entire "science" of climate change should be be re-evaluated. Is there a politician in Washington still in possession of a spine?

No comments: