Stop the anti-climate science totalitarians

“This is one of the more important articles I’ve ever written – because much is at stake,” says Paul Driessen.

“President Trump wants to launch a long overdue Presidential Committee on Climate Science, to examine “dangerous manmade climate change” reports and claims by federal agencies and investigators funded by them. Those studies are the foundation for Green New Deal and other proposals to disrupt and dismantle the fossil fuel system that provides 82% of America’s energy … to control our lives … and to send our living standards backward. And yet these alarmist studies and assertions have never been subjected to any critical independent review. That is why WE NEED THIS REVIEW NOW.”

“Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy special interests are in full outrage mode. They want NO such examination. They know it would demolish their climate chaos claims, and their plans to control our energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards. They and their media allies are attacking President Trump’s climate committee idea with every fiber of their being.”

“We need to support the President in fighting this latest attempt to silence anyone who would dare question assertions that we face imminent manmade climate disaster. He needs to know we support him in resisting these anti-science climate totalitarians – and must appoint his committee immediately.

Please take a few minutes to send a note of support to the President. The links are right there in this article.


Stop the anti-climate science totalitarians

They want to upend and transform America, but demand No Debate on underlying “science”

Paul Driessen

Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.

The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?

No! How dare YOU use those claims to justify your agenda – and your continued efforts to bludgeon and silence us into submission – without letting anyone examine, much less debate, your supposed evidence?

For years, you have loudly and incessantly asserted that the United States and world must end fossil fuel use, or we are “doomed.” Now you’re demanding that the United States completely upend its energy production, transportation and manufacturing sectors, housing and office buildings, and entire economy. You want the federal government to control and limit our lives, choices and living standards – and redistribute our wealth, even to those “unwilling to work,” according to confiscatory socialist principles.

For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence manmade climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate. All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this.

Your Climate Industrial Complex is a $2-trillion-per-year global behemoth. Your Green New Deal would cost this nation up to $93 trillion by 2030 – sticking every US family with a $65,000 annual bill.

And still you insist that the science is settled, that there is no room for discussion, that we must act immediately to “save the planet” from climate and extreme weather disaster. Now you want to wrap up your kangaroo court proceedings – with our side given no opportunity to present our evidence, defend fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, examine your alleged evidence, or cross-examine your experts.

If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours – extensively and mercilessly.

After all, the future of our planet is at stake – or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is.

Your radical agenda and actions are un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and contrary to our most fundamental principles of open, robust debate – on one of the most critical issues in US history.

A large majority of Americans believe our planet has warmed and is warming. No one denies that. And thank goodness, or we’d still be stuck in the Little Ice Age. But that’s not the issue. The issues are: Is any likely future warming going to be disastrous? And are humans and fossil fuels to blame?

You claim the answer is Yes. Again, where is your proof? If you have any actual evidence, lay it on the table. Show us exactly where the natural forces that have driven countless climate changes throughout history end – and where the human factors begin. Quantify them. Don’t give us computer models that simply reflect the assumptions that went into them. Present solid, Real World evidence. If you have any.

While you’re at it, you also need to prove that dismantling America’s energy and economic system will make one whit of difference in our climate and weather (assuming for the sake of argument that human carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate and weather) – when China, India and other countries are building thousands of coal and natural gas fueled power plants, and millions of cars and trucks.

Their emissions already dwarf ours. And they are not going to give up fossil fuels for decades, if ever.

Prove your GND energy system can actually power America, without destroying jobs, living standards, manufacturing, health, prosperity and environment. As I have said over, over and over, it cannot be done. Your alternatives are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable.

Here’s just a few of the Real World climate science facts that alarmists don’t want exposed or discussed.

Temperatures have risen by tenths or hundredths of a degree in recent years – less than the margin of error, and most of the “highest temperatures on record” have been in urban areas, where local manmade heat skews the data. We’re also experiencing record cold and snow in numerous locations.

The average prediction by 102 climate models is now a full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites are measuring. Michael Mann’s climate model could concoct hockey sticks from telephone numbers and other random numbers. Are we supposed to trust these models on critical energy policy?

Violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) averaged 56 per year from 1950 to 1985. But from 1986 to 2018 only 34 per year touched down in the USA on average – and for the first time ever not one did in 2018. The March 3 Alabama tornado was tragic, and the 2-mile-wide 2013 Oklahoma City monster lasted 40 minutes. But the 1925 Tri-State Twister was a mile wide, traveled a record 220 miles, lasted a record 3.5 hours, and killed a record 695 people.

Hurricanes becoming more frequent and intense? From 1920 through 1940, ten Category 3-5 hurricanes made US landfall; from 1960 through 1980, eleven; 1980 through 2000, ten; 2001 through 2018, nine. There is no trend. Moreover, Harvey and Irma in 2017 were the first category 3-5 hurricanes to make U.S. landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the Civil War era.

A warmer Arctic? The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922!

Polar bear populations are the highest on record: between 24,500 and 28,500 or more of them!

Oceans cannot become “more acidic,” because they are not and have never been acidic. Earth’s oceans are slightly alkaline. That slight alkalinity has decreased slightly (from 8.2 on the pH scale to 8.1) over the past few decades. But they are not getting acidic … and won’t anytime soon.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. In fact, the more CO2 in the air, the faster and better crop, forest and grassland plants grow – and the better they can withstand droughts, diseases, and damage from insects and viruses.

In fact, a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be tremendously beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would greatly reduce arable land extent, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, crop production and our ability to feed humanity.

Millions of Americans are exasperated with Republicans like Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois, who recently whined that it’s “just not worth the fight anymore” to battle climate alarmism – and protect our nation and our children’s future. Elected officials like him need to get spinal implants, learn the Climate Facts, or resign and turn their seats over to someone who will fight for us. That’s why we need the PCCS.

It’s why they hope the President Trump we elected to clean out the Deep State … show why manmade climate chaos claims are pseudo-science … and Make America Great Again for decades to come … will demonstrate his toughness and leadership right now, when we so need him to.

We need to tell Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions by the Climate Industrial Complex. Alarmists have controlled the climate narrative thus far. Now we need to give other experts a chance to weigh in, loud and clear.

Appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science now! Give sound, honest science a chance.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

16 thoughts on “Stop the anti-climate science totalitarians”

  1. Well said Paul,
    Co2 is sequestrated in our oceans to a value of 70X more than is in the atmosphere with the majority of it below 2000M in 2 to 3C water.
    CO2 is rained out and stored in temperate and Polar Regions were the surface sea temperature is below 12C.
    Oceans have a massive circulation system called the overturning current, that current takes five hundred years to move the Arctic to the centre of the Pacific.
    The cold CO2 laden water from the start of the LIA began to out gas in the Pacific in the 1950 in increasing volumes, it will continue to outgas for the next 420 years by then water from the start of the modern Solar Warm Period will start to reach outgassing with less CO2 per Litre of water.
    Everything about this Planet which depends on the Sun for energy is cyclic on a multiplicity of time scales, including how much CO2 is in the atmosphere at any one time.

  2. I regret to say that Mr. Driessen is more of a liability than an asset at the present time. It is not that such a committee should not be formed. It is even possible that it may be useful in combating the Greens as a scientific expression of dissent, however, I doubt it.

    This struggle has never been an issue of science. The arguments offered have never been more than a smokescreen over the real agenda. That agenda is depopulation. The whole of the idea is to panic people into running over a cliff while fearing the chimera behind them. The Greens will, themselves, never accept a negative opinion issued by this committee.

    The committee can be useful only if it can break the population’s faith in the Green’s honesty and integrity. Since the public does not understand much science, scientific arguments are not likely to have a great deal of weight. The response of the public, like the response of John Shimkus, will be to consider the immediately practical implications for their own lives. Seeing no immediate connection they will seek not to get involved.

    Only an immediately evident threat is likely to move people to action. The Greens know this; they do not have it, but that is not stopping them. They are attempting to fake it. If they make enough noise the noise will be taken for the real thing.

    These are not normal times so extreme action to stop the Greens will probably be necessary. Perhaps the best way to frustrate their plans would be to delay them by any means necessary until ice age conditions assert themselves even in part.

    If we are sufficiently lucky a very late Spring may threaten growing conditions across the US. If agriculture is seriously threatened it would be a much more important lesson for the public. If we have a cool Summer, and an early Fall it will do more to sow doubt, and most importantly, fear, in the public mind than any scientific commission.

    But do not kid yourselves. This is not a decline for arm chair debate. It needs to be starkly threatening. The Lie of the Green claims starkly evident. Next Winter needs to be fearful both in prospect and reality.

    Should events show any sign of taking the above course, Ice Age Now should be spending its scientific energies on plotting out the consequences of current solar decline on the weather in the next few years whenever and wherever less committed weather organizations fail to make the issues clear enough. The information should be used to alarm and inform relevant populations.

    Farmers will find the information potentially critical to their survival. At every point the need to secure energy supplies should be emphasized. The wind mill dreams of the Greens must be attacked as a total threat to mankind. The Greens should be vilified. The tools they have used against us must be turned against them.

    Our best weapon against them is their own Lie. Nature itself must be called upon to defeat them. In the meantime humans against the Green Lie should fight a delaying action.

  3. I always say “give ’em what they want” (think they want).

    If they don’t want coal fired power don’t give it to ’em.

    When the power goes off and their local internet crashes, phone service crashes, they can’t charge their phones or tablets and the coffee machines don’t work you’ll be deafened by the shrill complaints.

  4. When I say – If they don’t want coal fired power don’t give it to ’em – I should have been clear that the amount of power supplied is the proportion that renewables supply to the worlds energy consumption as reported by reliable agencies such as the International Energy agency.

    “Renewables” apparently supply ~15% of world energy, although wind and solar provide less than a quarter of that, so give the gullible “renewable energy” supporters exactly that – 15% of their current energy usage.

    They wouldn’t last a week !

    • I know that what I am about to relate is fantasy, but I can’t help but smile when I think of the reaction that would ensue.

      Imagine that it is April/early-May. Across the U.S. Midwest; the Canadian Prairies; and the Northeast, and not a single tractor engine has been started. Farmers have gone on a continent-wide “strike”, and won’t start planting until there is a recognition of what actually constitutes the real economy.

      Can you imagine the reaction of the politicos and the media?

      I know it is a silly fantasy, and I really wouldn’t want to see it happen. I just wish there was some way to make people aware of the “knife edge” upon which our civilization rests.

  5. One simple fact debunks CO2 as a threat. 8000 years ago temperatures were 2 degrees warmer and CO2 was below 300 ppm. What was holding all the warmth in? It wasn’t CO2. Something else caused the warming.

  6. Chris Wells, you’re playing the warmists’ game… China and India should get no or positive attention for their coal burning, especially given that they’re building clean-coal plants.

    CO2 is not the climate control knob. In fact, given that quantum mechanics dictates that CO2 can only absorb 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron radiation, and the only one of those which has any appreciable radiance is 15 micron, and 15 micron radiation corresponds to a blackbody temperature of -79.65 C per the Wien equation, CO2 does not and cannot absorb any wavelengths which can warm the atmosphere via collisional deexcitation.

    In other words, heat does not flow from colder to warmer, as per the Laws of Thermodynamics. Not directly, not via conversion to atomic vibrational states then to translational motion via collisional deexcitation, not ever.

    At the very most, CO2 puts in a *floor* on temperature at ~-80 C. If temperature gets below ~-80 C, CO2 will absorb and reradiate that 15 micron radiation, helping to prevent temperature from going much below ~-80 C. This is why the lowest temperature ever directly recorded on the surface of the planet (at Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 Jul 83) was -89.2 C.

    Satellite measurements show a -93.2 C reading for 10 Aug 2010, but that’s provisional and subject to revision because it measured the ice temperature and not the air temperature.

  7. obama revved up the mil industrials to think they were going to save the planet as well…sigh- any excuse for funding and power/control is leapt on.
    and they are the ones in large part now refusing to show evidence theyre basing their defence planning/strategic actions on a set of data no one but them has ever seen and claim its perfect and good.
    Mann just got a slap to the chops by the response to FOI requests being positive on OUR side, they have to disclose emails etc
    WUWT has link to the pdf files etc released this week.

  8. Anyhow you view this I think our extremes will balance out the excess co2 but not in the way interperated by the left! Just imagine our extremes going both ways! Nevertheless get ready to see deserts dissapear in the next 50 years and at the same time see it snow in places more that use to not get it!

  9. Let me reiterate myself for the 3rd time LOL. The elite will buried under a mile of ice still yelling AGW, till they run out of Grey Poupon, and diligently seek a volunteer to get topside looking for more!

    Good luck down there gentlemen

  10. Brad, you’re playing the warmist’s game. You should stop doing that. Stop lending credence to the alarmists.

    There is no “excess CO2”, and in fact, the planet is near the lowest CO2 concentration it’s ever been throughout its history! We’re very near the point where some plants can no longer extract CO2 from the atmosphere… if we drive CO2 concentration lower, we harm plant life worldwide. And that means we harm animal life worldwide.

    CO2 has been as much as 17 times higher concentration in the past, and the planet not only didn’t go into runaway warming, it dropped into a million-plus year ice age!

    CO2 is not the climate control knob. If anything, more CO2 would be beneficial… corals would build their skeletons faster, plankton and algae would grow faster and provide more food at the base of the food chain leading to more abundant fish numbers, plants would grow faster and produce more food.

  11. But, but the planets warming-up …
    Yep! At about 1°C per century! Wow how will we survive? Very nicely for if this planet were to gradually warm by another 1°C to 2°C along with the natural enhanced atmospheric CO2 levels, then plant life (and therefore all life) would benefit, and would flourish.

    However if this is just a brief warm blip before the cooling plunge again, then all plant and animal life is in for a much harder time. Who is ready for a Dalton minimum type of climate change? No government I can see.

    So plan for the best (warmer, calmer, wetter, and greener) but be prepared for the worst (cooler, stormier, then drier, but with less food available).

Comments are closed.