Bone-chilling temperatures across the U.S. haven’t stopped 350.org from holding a "Day Against Denial," featuring #Climate Change protests and events today asking people to tell their U.S. Senators to reject President-elect #Donald Trump’s cabinet picks. Specifically, choices like Rex Tillerson (State Dept.), Rick Perry (Energy Dept.), Jeff Sessions (AG), and Scott Pruitt (EPA head).
350.org is an activist group led by extremist Bill McKibben, who had previously said we should fight global warming just like we did the Nazis in WWII.
With reports that employees at the EPA and Energy Dept. started crying and needed counseling after Trump’s win, it’s no surprise to see 350.org exploiting those fears. And climatologist Michael Mann of ‘hockey stick’ fame told nearly 26,000 scientists last month to make their voices heard in the name of scientific research and “for the sake of the entire planet.” Even meteorologist Eric Holthaus released a tweet saying he was seeking counseling over his “climate despair.”
I'm starting my 11th year working on climate change, including the last 4 in daily journalism. Today I went to see a counselor about it. 1/— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) January 6, 2017
Trump’s key picks
So is this fear linked to factual information? When NPR looked for evidence that Pruitt denied climate change, they couldn’t find a single case of him denying it. Rex Tillerson has said repeatedly that he is in favor of a carbon tax and that he learned of global warming when everyone else did.
Rick Perry has been a critic of the Energy Department’s crony capitalism, where they pick and choose winners in the energy arena (think Solyndra). And Perry has acknowledged the climate does indeed change. Even Sessions concedes the climate changes but wants substantive evidence. So what does Bill McKibben really want?
Loss of power
Julie Kelly of The Federalist speculates this is all about “loss of power” and has nothing to do with the planet. She believes climate alarmists like Mann and McKibben are fearful that the federal #Government will start funding science that goes beyond the CO2-warming dogma. Currently, the bulk of research grants is earmarked to prove climate change is caused by man.
Reaction To Trump’s Team Proves Climate Alarmists Are The Real Deniers https://t.co/v3XsptRQ8e— CSM (@usacsmret) January 9, 2017
For the past eight years, Kelly writes, the politicized agencies under Obama’s thumb have passed massive regulations to appease climate change zealots. And despite all this, CO2 emissions have risen and temperatures have flatlined, not soared.
Recently, the soft-spoken climatologist Dr. Judith Curry appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to explain why she is retiring from academia to work in the private sector: the field of climate science is far too politicized:
Global Warming Skeptic Tells Tucker Carlson Why She Left Academia: ‘Knives sticking out of my back’ https://t.co/j00G2WI1SB— bill ray (@12billpen) January 8, 2017
And she’s not alone. More and more scientists are coming forward to voice their doubts that carbon dioxide is the primary factor in a warming climate. That’s when they feel the swift and immediate backlash from fellow scientists and activists. When Carlson asked Curry about the oft-quoted 98 percent consensus, she said the so-called consensus is a perfect example of bad survey methodology.
The 98% consensus
If you ask a scientist if the Earth has warmed in the past 150 years (when we left the 300-year-long Little Ice Age) most would say yes. And if you ask them if humans have had an impact, most would also answer yes. She told Carlson the interviewers then claim that 98 percent of scientists agree the Earth is warming and humans are at fault. Curry acknowledged under those strict circumstances, even she would be in the 98 percentile.
But the most vital question should be “how much” can be attributed to us. Curry said the evidence simply isn’t there to make the assertion humans are the primary driver. As for her academic retirement, Mann celebrated her decision by saying she had a “pernicious role in the climate change denial campaign, laundering standard denier talking points.” He said much of what he’s seen from her is “boilerplate climate change denial drivel.”
That’s dogmatic science, not climate science. And Kelly wonders if a new administration will undertake the role of subsidizing science that doesn't shut down debate.