I can sense a real battle brewing here, the gauntlet has been dropped, will Al Gore and the environmentalists turn tail and run? Let them show their cards and stop huffing and bluffing.
Here are some excerpts from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. regarding global warming. To see the entire article, go here:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3183.html
Peter
The Real Inconvenient Truth
By: Sen. Jim Inhofe March 20, 2007 01:16 PM EST
Senator James Inhofe, R-Okla., discusses energy legislation being debated on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, July 30, 2003. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
The New York Times -- nearly a year late -- is finally recognizing the scientific reality regarding fears of a man-made climate catastrophe. On March 13, a landmark article stated "scientists argue that some of (former Vice President Al) Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."
It appears we are all skeptics now.
A separate U.N. report last year found that emissions (methane gas) from cows do more to drive global warming than C02 from cars.
An increasing number of government leaders and scientists are finally realizing that much of the motivation behind the climate scare has nothing to do with science.
Recently, prominent French scientist Claude Allegre recanted his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming and now says promotion of the idea is motivated by money. (This coming from a French Socialist, no less.)
New research by teams of international scientists is revealing that the sun has been a major driver of climate variability. Solar specialist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center explained, "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years."
The usual suspects will still insist that there is a "consensus" of scientists who agree with Gore. And yes, many governing boards and spokesmen of science institutions must toe the politically correct line of Gore-inspired science, but the rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling.
Just ask James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the American Meteorological Society. Spann, who has nearly 30 years of experience as a weather expert, said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February, a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95 percent of his profession rejects global warming fears.
Let me put this bluntly: Our political leaders in Washington are going to demand the American people make significant economic sacrifices by paying 4 percent more, 10 percent more or even higher for gasoline and home energy costs in order to "do something" to address the climate "crisis."
What do Americans get in return for this economic sacrifice?
They get real economic pain for no climate gain, and they get "solutions" that are purely symbolic. The American people may opt to shut down Washington, D.C., with a flood of phone calls, e-mails and faxes before they allow any of these "solutions" to become law.
Ironically, climate skeptics may owe Gore, Hollywood, liberal environmental groups and the mainstream media a big debt of gratitude. If it were not for the shrill, "sky is falling" rhetoric emitted by the elite jet-setters hyping this issue, the silent majority of scientific experts who reject alarmism might not have been stirred to action.
The real inconvenient truth is that global warming fearmongers have overplayed their hand and are now suffering a massive scientific and media backlash. America needs a rational science debate about climate variability. Achieving that goal now appears closer to reality.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
2 comments:
There was such a rush by the global warming alarmists to declare that the science was settled, no room for doubt, case closed. Those who voiced opposition were ridiculed and compared to Holocaust deniers. Some prominent scientists who spoke out against AGW even received death threats.
Could it be that the alarmists feared their rhetoric would collapse under questioning?
The US Congress owes it's people an unbiased, open debate on the science. We should demand it.
my2cents
Can Congress really have an "unbiased, open debate on the science"?
I think that would be a little like going to the Vatican and trying to debate the validity of Cathlocism.
I think the only way to settle this is by voters educating themselves and then voting all of the idiots who believe in this global warming scam out of office.
Post a Comment