Climate alarmists seek to squash dissent

by Sen. Doug Whitsett

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.

Senator Doug Whitsett is the Republican state senator representing Senate District 28 – Klamath Falls