The Green New Deal or some similar schemes would cost $65,000 per family per year.
– John Droz
“It has often been said that only people who have the poorest, stupidest, worst ideas demand that they and their ideas be shielded from questions and criticism,” says Paul Driessen. “Maybe that’s why diehard climate alarmists and renewable energy advocates insist that “the science is settled” … that their asserted (and fabricated) “97 consensus” eliminates the need for any further discussion … and that we must immediately begin the process of dismantling and eliminating all fossil fuel use in the United States. They know they and their ideas would not survive scrutiny.”
“Or as physicist John Droz puts it in this article: Why are they so adamantly opposed to the creation of an independent, expert review of their “irrefutable” claims that the world faces an imminent and existential threat of manmade climate disaster? Why do they so vehemently oppose President Trump’s proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science? WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?”
After reading John’s thought-provoking article, please consider forwarding it to your friends and colleagues – and taking a moment to send Mr. Trump a short note saying you support this committee. The links embedded below will make sending a note even easier than shouting “97% consensus.”
Make America Greater: Approve the PCCS!
America absolutely needs outside expert review of climate claims used to oppose fossil fuels
Should the United States conduct a full, independent, expert scientific investigation into models and studies that say we face serious risks of manmade climate change and extreme weather disasters?
As incredible as it may seem, US government climate science has never been subjected to any such examination. Instead, it has been conducted by government agencies and assorted climate, environmental, history, psychology and other “experts” paid by the same government agencies – to the tune of literally billions of dollars per year.
Moreover, all that time, effort and money has been spent on studies that claim carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” are causing unprecedented climate and weather cataclysms, requiring the immediate and total elimination of fossil fuels that supply 82% of all US energy. Virtually none of it has been spent on studies of the powerful natural forces that have driven global warming and cooling, other climate changes and innumerable extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history.
Replacing all that energy – under the Green New Deal we hear so much about lately, or some similar schemes – would cost this country up to $93 trillion by 2030! That’s $65,000 per family per year!
Even worse, those same agencies and government contractors have actively prevented any independent review of their work. They have intimidated, silenced and vilified anyone who attempted to question or examine their data, computer models, assumptions, algorithms and conclusions.
They are adamantly opposed to any such review now. So are some 97% of all Democrats, environmentalists and “mainstream” news media.
You have to wonder: If their work is as solid, above-board and honest as they claim – wouldn’t they be delighted to defend it in public, and prove their detractors wrong?
Since they so totally opposed to any independent review – what are they trying to hide?
President Trump’s proposed investigation would be conducted by a brand new Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS), led by physicist and presidential advisor Dr. Will Happer. It would be carried out by climate scientists and experts who did not participate in the original (alarmist) studies.
A decision about launching the PCCS will be made very soon. Support for the PCCS is urgently needed.
Many who oppose the PCCS claim human responsibility for climate change and extreme weather has already been resolved scientifically. That is simply not so. A genuine scientific assessment has four necessary components. It must be comprehensive, objective, transparent and empirical.
There has never been a true scientific assessment of global warming claims, anywhere on the planet.
In fact, even repeatedly referenced reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have faced no such review – and would fail at least three of those four criteria! That is largely because the IPCC computer models and claims of climate disasters are supported by virtually no real-world evidence.
PCCS opponents also say President Trump is acting irrationally on global warming. In reality, he is taking a far more scientific position than his critics are. Skepticism is the primary pillar of Real Science. So being labeled a “skeptic” is high praise to real scientists.
If it’s Real Science, questions, skepticism and constant reexamination are essential. Consensus is out.
If it’s consensus – and questions and skepticism are prohibited – it’s not Real Science.
PCCS opponents are telling us we have to accept their “consensus science” without question. Eliminate the fossil fuels that make our factories, healthcare, jobs, heating, lighting, food, internet and living standards possible. And put the federal government in control of all future energy and personal choices.
Certainly, the “science” that supposedly supports those demands should be examined carefully and scientifically before we rush to judgment on 82% of our energy. Not according to PCCS opponents.
The bottom line is very simple. President Trump should be applauded for proposing the PCCS, and for being open-minded enough to reconsider global warming claims – before he or we accept them as gospel.
Americans need to support him against the very vocal (and self-interested) people and organizations that oppose the PCCS.
We need to take immediate action to support President Trump on this vitally important initiative.
Use the link. Send him a quick note. Real, evidence-based climate science demands that we have this PCCS review. So does the future of our country and our children.
John Droz, Jr. is a physicist and director of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), which promotes energy policies and programs that are technically, economically and environmentally sound.