Advocates work hard to keep dissenters silent and the flaws in their own case hidden.
BANGOR — In the year 2050, people will shake their heads in amazement when they read in history books that, back in 2010, some people thought mankind could “save the planet” by carbon-restricting legislation.
A generation from now, people will all see how we today were misled by scientists and journalists who pursued an agenda. It ended up by starving prosperous countries of needed energy supplies. A whole generation suffered unnecessarily from a sort of mass hysteria.
Science has been corrupted. That’s nothing new, but perhaps never before has it happened on the present scale. The National Academy of Sciences, until recently a respected congregation of the nation’s best minds, has published in a recent Proceedings a “blacklist” of climate researchers who have doubts about, or disagree with, the majority who believe that humankind is responsible for the recent warming of our planet.
This publication strives to diminish the reputations and credentials of “skeptics” or “deniers.” How shameful.
Some believe this is a desperate attempt to counteract the growing doubt regarding “global warming,” now dubbed “anthropogenic climate change.” Can such an official act of defamation exist in the scientific establishment today? Unfortunately, yes.
This comes on the heels of several months of cascading revelations regarding data-doctoring and destruction, peer-review subversion, evasion of freedom of information requests, and outright fabrications perpetrated by the leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who crafted their reports on which many of our politicians base their support of carbon-restricting legislation (see Climategate, Amazongate, Himalayagate, etc.).
Little of this has been reported in our media. Recently the main actors in “Climategate” have been “cleared” of any wrongdoing in pathetic whitewashes of their actions.
Imagine an official review that didn’t go into the accuracy of the scientific findings, or in which none of the “doubters” was interviewed. Ah, but millions in research grants were at stake. Are you surprised?
There is an agenda, set up decades ago by the United Nations, with a mission to convict the Western World of despoiling the planet. The plan was and remains that of engineering a redistribution of wealth to poorer countries, while bringing ever more power and control to central governments.
What better way than to indict our “excessive” production of CO2, a minor greenhouse gas that is necessary for all life on Earth? This was demonstrated dramatically in Copenhagen last December. There was outrage in the African delegations when carbon-restricting mandates on developed nations failed adoption.
Be reminded that the global mean temperature has increased only 0.7 degrees C in the last century, which many believe is part of a natural cycle. We have historical evidence, long before CO2 levels rose, of the Roman optimum (warm), Dark Ages (cool), the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” ( approximately from the mid-15th to mid-19th centuries). And it’s noteworthy that higher CO2 levels have always followed temperature increases.
One of the most powerful criticisms is that while the truth of a scientific postulate is judged by observed fact in the real world, many of the alarmists’ predictions are derived from computerized models which may share false premises (and desired outcomes).
Apocalyptic scenarios may garner more public support for large governmental research grants than assurances that the world and its complex weather systems will somehow get along without help or hindrance from us – as they always have.
We learn about those who insist that something must be done now to save the planet, yet we never learn from our left-leaning media about the thousands of well-qualified scientists, including many distinguished names, who protest that the science is dubious.
Ignored is a petition to the U.S. government, signed by more than 31,000 well-qualified scientists, protesting that AGW is based on flawed ideas and that the use of hydrocarbons is not changing the climate.
Despite the revelations of scientific corruption, many who object are, often as not, vilified as far-out fringe types not worthy of serious attention.
The skeptics are smeared as funded by “big oil,” whether it is true or not, ignoring the fact that government grants dwarf all other support for research.
Here in north-central Maine, our only daily newspaper feeds us a steady diet of climate alarm, rarely publishing skeptical opinions other than an occasional letter.
The Portland Press Herald is commendable for its support of a lively debate on this important subject, so essential to an informed electorate. Thanks, and keep it up.
— Special to The Press Herald