The global warming religion is in trouble. Its computer-modeled predictions have turned out to be wrong. It has been caught lying and cheating, hiding data, and simply making things up. Even the UN’s climate panel has admitted that if the world’s governments–which means mostly the US–gave them every dollar they demanded and returned the world–which means mostly the US as no one else would be so stupid–to a pre-industrial state, it might change global temperatures by something less than a degree in a century. Worst of all, there has been no warming whatever for nearly two straight decades.
Of course, this has prompted Mr. Obama to double down on stupid. He has kept one of his few campaign promises by doing all he can to destroy the domestic coal industry and dramatically raise the energy costs of Americans. This, predictably, has had no effect on the climate. That anyone might imagine we could significantly alter the climate of an entire planet is the height of lunatic hubris, but hardly surprising for a man who believed his receipt of the democrat nomination for president was capable of calming the seas and healing the planet.
More recently, Mr. Obama has proclaimed that climate change is the most serious national security problem facing America. Which explains a great deal. And is absolutely horrifying. The Iranians are pretty jazzed about it, however.
So what’s a global warming true believer, drank-the-entire-bathtub-full-of-Kool-Aid pseudo-scientist to do? The invaluable Mark Steyn explains:
One of the most malodorous and disreputable aspects of American jurisprudence is the way laws intended to have very narrow application metastasize to target almost anyone the government is minded to stick it to. Thus, the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act – RICO – which, as its name suggests, was originally aimed at racketeers, but by 2007 was being deployed against, for example, my old boss Conrad Black. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald decided to deploy RICO against Canadian newspaper publishers he’d taken a dislike to because he could. That’s how federal law works.
Why shouldn’t others get a piece of the action? Frustrated at the failure of global-warming alarmism to shift an apathetic public, Big Climate could do several things. Most obviously, they could resume public debate with those who disagree with them, win the argument and thereby persuade the people – which is how change is effected in self-governing societies.
Quite so, but it seems that relentlessly hectoring people, promising to make their energy bills unaffordable, suggesting that unless one buys the climate faith without question or be known as a morally bankrupt “denier,” and being told that climate change is more dangerous to America’s existence than Islamist madmen with nuclear weapons and a powerful yearning to use them, inexplicably and surprisingly tends not to be very persuasive.
They have, therefore, given up persuasion. A group of twenty have written a letter to President Obama, the Attorney General and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren. Have they urged greater funding? More comprehensive research? Not quite. But first the rogue’s gallery:
Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT
These self-identified important and leading “climate scientists”–whose nerve center and/or inspiration appears to be George Mason University–have asked the President to use the RICO statute against anyone daring to expose their “science” as fraudulent. From the letter:
The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.
Earlier in the letter they noted:
The stability of Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization.
Well yes, because before then there was rather a lengthy ice age, and all indications are we are due for another, such things being cyclical. They are also failing to notice the fact that it was global warming that “contributed to the growth of agriculture,” which global warming they now claim to be the harbinger of mankind’s doom. Human beings having industrial revolutions, technological revolutions, medical revolutions and a bit of puttering around the margins also had something to do with man’s relative success, but that’s surely a coincidence. Man is, after all, responsible for the global warming that is, perplexingly, not happening, thus requiring the alteration in terms to “climate change.”
Notice that the 20 “climate scientists” not only want the federal government to jail and fine corporations, but “their supporters” for “misdeeds” they may have committed as outlined in “books and journal articles.” And which books and journal articles might these be? Why books and journal articles written by the “climate scientists” and their supporters. And the “misdeeds?” Daring to expose the lies, fake science and false conclusions of the “clime syndicate,” as Steyn terms them.
“They just won’t believe us, and we’re climate scientists!” One imagines them plaintively whining. I mean, why did they go to all the trouble of getting all those degrees and stuff if the little people who don’t have all those degrees and stuff won’t worship them like gods?
Anyone that imagines that Mr. Obama would not take such a lawless suggestion to heart and turn the DOJ loose on average citizens daring to be “climate deniers,” has not been paying attention. The law and the Constitution are for lesser beings, and surely, climate deniers, and Mr. Obama has a great deal to do to add to his legacy in just a bit more than a year. Putting a few climate deniers in federal prison would look good on his resume when he applies to be Secretary General of the UN, and thereafter, Emperor of the World.
The lawful, less destructive, and smarter approach would be to prove, though the application of actual, replicable science, that their conclusions are valid. Write computer models that actually produce accurate predications. You know, do real science and quit hiding data sets, making up data, and trying to harass, attack and ruin anyone that holds a differing opinion. This, of course, is not the way of contemporary “climate scientists” or Progressives, but I repeat myself.
Keep in mind that “deniers” are not only those that think global warming/climate change orthodoxy a crock, but fellow scientists who believe that climate change could potentially be a problem, and who think the “climate scientists” to be mistaken, wrong, liars, con men and frauds, bad scientists in other words.
The greatest irony in this situation lies in the “climate scientist’s” faith that their misuse of criminal statutes and suppression of the First Amendment rights of their opponents will not, one day, be used against them. Or perhaps they’re just too stupid to see that as a possibility. Perhaps they just believe they’re too brilliant to be wrong, and that it is the duty of government to force others to acknowledge their brilliance, the law and the Constitution be damned.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the scientific method is designed to eliminate that kind of hubris from science. Apparently that no longer holds true if “climate scientists” really, really think they’re right, even if they can’t produce any, you know, science to prove it.