It is a sure sign that the advocates of the “global
warming” and “climate change” hoaxes know that the public no longer believes
that the former is occurring or that the latter represents an immediate, global
threat.
Even though the “climate skeptics”, scientists who
have produced research proving false methodology and the conclusions based on
it are quite few in number, an effort to silence them by smearing their
reputations and denying funding for their work has been launched and it is based
entirely on a lie.
Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, not only of
other scientist’s findings, but their own. Good science must be able to
reproduce the results of published research. In the case of the many computer
models cited as proof that global warming was occurring or would, the passing
years have demonstrated that none were accurate.
As Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland
Institute and Joseph A. Morris, an attorney who has fought in several countries
to defend free speech, wrote in a February 24 commentary, “The Crucifixion
of Dr. Wei-Hock Soon”, of an article co-authored with Christopher
Monckton, Matt Briggs, and David Legates, and published in the Science Bulletin, a publication of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences “The article reveals what appears to be an error in
the computer models used to predict global warming that leads models to
over-estimate future warming by a factor of three.” (Emphasis added)
Their commentary has been downloaded more than 10,000 times!
“If the work of Soon et al is confirmed by other scientists, the ‘global warming crisis’
may need to be cancelled and we can all enjoy lower taxes, fewer regulations,
and more personal freedom.” However, “having failed to refute the article,
environmentalists turned to smearing the authors.”
Little wonder the “Warmists” are worried; the Earth
has been in a cooling cycle since 1996. People are noticing just how cold this
record-breaking and record-setting winter is.
The attack on Dr. Soon began with a Greenpeace news
release that was republished on the front page of The New York Times on
February 22nd. Despite its august reputation, The Times' coverage of
climate issues has been an utter disgrace for decades. As public interest
waned, it eliminated its staff of reporters exclusively devoted to writing
about the “environment.”
Myron Ebell, a climate change skeptic and director of
Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, noted on February 27th that the Greenpeace
attack on Dr. Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics claimed
they had secured $1.2 million in funding for his research over the past decade
and that it came from energy corporations, electric utilities, and charitable
foundations related to those companies. The truth, however, is “that the grants
were made not to Dr. Soon but to the Smithsonian, which never complained while
taking its sizable cut off the top.”
Columnist Larry Bell
who is also an endowed professor at the University of Houston, disputed the
Greenpeace claim, saying, “First, let’s recognize that the supporting FOIA
documents referred to an agreement between the Smithsonian (not Dr. Soon) and
Southern Company Services, Inc., whereby 40 percent of that more than $1.2
million went directly to the Smithsonian” leaving “an average funding of
$71,000 a year for the past eleven years to support the actual research
activities.”
Focusing on Greenpeace and its Climate Investigations
Center which describes itself as “a group funded by foundations seeking to
limit the risks of climate change”, Bell asked “Do these activist organizations
make their estimated $360,000,000 annual funding publicly available?” Bell said
“Ad hominem assaults disparaging the integrity of this leading authority on
relationships between solar phenomena and global climate are unconscionable.”
In his article, “Vilifying
realist science—and scientists”, Paul Driessen, a policy advisor to
the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), noted that in 2012
Greenpeace USA was the recipient of $32,791,149 and that this is true of other
environmental pressure groups that in 2012 secured $111,915.138 for the
Environmental Defense Fund, $98,701,707 for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, $97,757,678 for the Sierra Club, and, for Al Gore’s Alliance for
Climate Protection, $19,150,215.
“All told,” noted Driessen, “more than 16,000 American
environmental groups collect(ed) total annual revenues of over $13.4 billion
(2009 figures). Only a small part of that comes from membership dues and
individual contributions.” With that kind of money you can do a lot of damage
to scientist’s reputation.
They fear that the public may actually learn the truth
about “global warming” and the fear-mongering claims about “climate change”
does not stop with just the environmental organizations. At the same time The
New York Times was printing the Greenpeace lies, U.S. Senators Ed Market
(D-Mass), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) joined together
on February 25th to send letters to 107 companies, trade
associations, and non-profit groups demanding comprehensive information about
all funding of research on climate or related issues.
Among the groups receiving the letter were two for
whom I am a policy advisor, The Heartland
Institute and CFACT,
but others include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall
Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the American Energy
Alliance.
Following The New York Times article, Rep. Raul
Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee,
sent letters to the presidents of seven universities asking them to provide
details about seven professors who are either prominent global warming
skeptics.
As Rich Lowrey, editor of the National Review, pointed out on February 27th, that "Science as an enterprise usually doesn't need political enforcers. But proponents of a climate alarmism that demands immediate action to avert worldwide catastrophe won't and can't simply let the science speak for itself."
This is not fact-finding. It is an act of
intimidation.
And it looks like a carefully organized effort to
quash any research that might dispute “global warming” or “climate change” as
defined by the Greens and by both the President and the Secretary of State as
the greatest threat we and the rest of the world faces.
The greatest threat is the scores of environmental
organizations that have been exaggerating and distorting their alleged
“science” in order to thwart development here and around the world that would
enhance everyone’s life. Now they are attacking real scientists, those who are
skeptical of their claims, to silence them.
This is what fascists do.
No comments:
Post a Comment