I await the response from learned scientists, Al Gore and Paul Krugman on this “treasonous” letter from scientific community deniers…
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are:
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
Global warming renamed “climate change”, yada yada.
The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of SciencesWilliam Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of SciencesS. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGURoger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APSHarold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety StudyLaurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APSRichard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
Don’t look like no consensus to me.
I think that the Midwest and Canada should form a coalition to DEMAND global warming! (It’s raining again and the high will be in the 60s… not good for the crops.)
Environmentalists = watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.
Funny, isn’t it, how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just seems to continually find evidence to support their existence. Never let a good crisis go to waste, real or imagined, if it keeps you from having to find a real job.
@Sayers – I think that was just one goal. I believe another was simply autocratic control, beyond the reach of silly old documents like the Constitution… phfeh.
The problem is that saving the planet was never their goal anyway. Destroying the US economy is, and always has been, their goal. ‘Climate change’ is just what they use to dupe the masses into supporting this goal.
Bob, the “consensus” was a sham to begin with. The IPCC reports were based on piecemeal assignments.
One example: a scientist was asked to calculate the effect on population and habitability of a string of Pacific islands, based on what would happen if there were a 20 foot rise in sea level. That was his task, and he complied.
He was never asked whether he thought such a scenario was probable (or even POSSIBLE.) Yet his name was attached to the IPCC rolls as being a “supporter” of the documentation.
Most of the researchers listed in the report were sucked into a giant “What If” game, and many resent how their participation was re-cast and taken out of context.
(Have I mentioned how proud I am to be a part of the B&R online family?)
To “Big Green” and the lemmings that unquestioningly follow you, I have just word:
M – o – r – o – n – s!
I am sure these “deniers” have some link, some where, to “Big Oil” and therefore their evidence should be considered null and void. Any evidence offered by anyone not affiliated with “Big Green” is irrelevant and illegitimate.
Funny how political agendas work.
I have always wondered what makes people cynical and leaves them jaded. Is it nature, nurture, or something else. Now I know with the utmost confidence, that it is nurture of the insane variety.
Deniers with serious creds, too.
“Demand Proof, not Consesus” – Well that pretty much sums up why Algore, et alia aren’t willing to actually debate, and why they claim the science has “been decided.”