Repeat after me: the science is settled. Not only that, but the settled science is settled. Once and for all. Stop the presses. Stop debating the question. Doubt is forbidden. Skepticism is a thought crime. If you do not accept this scientific truth, based on the clearest of facts, accepted by most of the world’s scientists, we will send the thought police to your door. They will frog walk you down Main Street so that everyone can ridicule your ignorant denial of science. We will publicly denounce you as a climate change denier, just like a Holocaust denier. We will publicly expose your complicity in the denialist movement that wants to destroy the planet and Mother Nature with it. You will be forever cursed and consigned to the lowest circle of the Inferno, reserved for the worst traitors.
For the love of science, climate change must be accepted uncritically. People who insist that we must always remain critical of our government and our civilization force us all to accept their view of climate science. After all, the science is settled.
Recently, Professor Richard Lindzen—the voice of one crying out in the wilderness—wrote a letter to President Trump explaining his views on carbon dioxide, that is, greenhouse gasses.
Who is Richard Lindzen? Glad you asked. Powerline (via Maggie’s Farm) offers a few highlights from his resume:
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere.
There’s more. Those are just the highlights. We ought to agree that Lindzen is eminently qualified to offer an opinion about the current mass hysteria about climate change. Hold your breath, gird your loins, Lindzen even knows more than Al Gore and Barack Obama. It is a sad commentary on our current national conversation that a leading voice in the field has been effectively marginalized, his opinions dismissed as irrelevant.
Yes, I understand, because I have heard the drumbeat over and over again, that the majority of the world’s scientists believe in global warming or cooling or whatever. But, I also understand that scientific fact is not established by taking a poll, even a poll of scientists.
What did Lindzen to say about climate science in his letter to Donald Trump? Glad you asked:
For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.
Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change].
The UNFCCC was established twenty-five years ago, to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.
Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.
It should be clear. It should be persuasive. If it is not it merely shows how much the dogmas of the Church of the Liberal Pieties have invaded our minds and deprived us of our ability to reason.
Funnily enough, yesterday we also came across a column by Stephen Moore in the Investor’s Business Daily. (via Maggie's Farm) Moore had the temerity to question the results of the European effort to fill the continent with windmills and other renewable energy sources.
This will surely brighten up a snowy day:
In Germany, the world leader in green energy, electricity prices have now reached a level triple those paid in the United States. …
In Britain to comply with renewable energy requirements, power stations are burning hundreds of millions of pounds of wood pellets (pellets imported from the U.S.). Environmental experts confirm that burning wood is much worse for the environment than burning natural gas or even coal.
Australia, another "green energy" leader, saw its electricity prices sky-rocket this past winter.
According to an analysis by the Institute for Energy Research, power costs surged unbelievably from $100 per megawatt hour to $10,000 per megawatt hour, because of heavy dependence on its unreliable renewable energy program. The government had to reopen one of its shuttered natural gas plants to keep prices from further exploding.
Sweden announced a decade ago that it was all in on green energy and launched a wind power program that the politicians have now had to embarrasingly acknowledge has become hopelessly expensive and inefficient.
They are now shutting down wind turbines and the government will phase out the subsidies that have been lavished on the industry.
In each of these cases, the economies and local factories are taking a big hit.
According to the IER analysis of Australia:
"The government has found that its electric system that is heavily reliant on wind power (40% comes from intermittent renewable sources) cannot cope without reliable power from traditional generation sources. The fallout is that Australia is finding that its energy-intensive businesses are relocating to Asian countries that provide stable regulation and costs, lower taxes, cheaper wages, and less red tape."
Sad to say, but these are facts. They count as inconvenient facts, the kinds that undermine the climate change movement’s headlong charge to repeal the Industrial Revolution.
The European and Australian folly about clean energy has worked to the advantage of the good old USA. Who knew?
This has given American steel, auto, light manufacturing, agriculture, and technology firms a big competitive edge in world markets. This is why European nations and Australia are understandably desperate for the U.S. to move to the same green energy policies that they adopted years ago.
Those are the facts, amigos. Read them and go running back into your dogmas.