To the Editor:
A Feb. 21 letter to the editor (by a person who identifies himself as the “Director of Environmental Studies”) is nothing more than a desperate attempt to help solidify his future continuance in that bogus position, wholly funded by the global warming advocates in our out-of-control government. (That latest government funding lunacy amounted to $22.7 billion in 2013 for just climate change)
A famous scientist by the name of Albert Einstein said, “that genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops.”
Author Michael Crichton describes the situation quite accurately as follows:
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled ... Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world ... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
In the letter, Mr. Barnhill uses that scientifically inappropriate word, “consensus,” a dozen times in a hopeless attempt to get his ideology cemented in the reader’s mind. “Scientific Consensus” is a perfect example of an oxymoron.
The writer expounds on and enthusiastically praises that totally debunked global warming bible, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its five assessment reports. A sampling of qualified scientist’s commentaries on the IPCC includes:
“I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.”
“It would be recognized that the IPCC is just another review, and an unstructured and biased one at that. Its main in-scope goal is to find a human influence on climate, and the range of reasons for climate change are out-of-scope, creating a systematic bias against natural explanations for climate change.”
“So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the U.S. congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore.”
“...consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true ... To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any influence on the Earth’s climate.”
Besides using that melting pot of climate lies and political falsehoods, the IPCC AR’s, Mr. Barnhill invokes that highly questionable source of public truth, Wikipedia.
Knowledgeable researchers all recognize that Wikipedia is certainly a nice, convenient source of information for a high school student’s essay assignment, but certainly can’t be used in any kind of serious investigatory efforts. With its genesis being the result of years of uncontrolled writing and editing by over 50,000 contributors, it has become highly suspect.
Mr. Barnhill and other fact-starved, progressive bloviating pseudo-scientists such as Mr. J. Kocovsky inevitably lead one to compare their love of the false global warming consensus to another famous false scientific consensus: the belief in the geocentric model of the solar system. Ptolemy was the most influential of Greek astronomers and geographers of his time. He propounded the geocentric theory that the sun revolves about the earth which prevailed for 1,400 years. The truthful heliocentric model evolved only after the efforts of a few unknown deniers by the names of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton who revived the model originally proposed by Greek astronomer, Aristarchus in 300 B.C. In the Roman Inquisition both Galileo and Bruno were arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for their beliefs in heliocentric theory; and Galileo spent the final years of his life under house arrest while Bruno was executed.
Today global warming nut-jobs are proposing a 21st century revival of a new inquisition to arrest, convict, and punish climate change skeptics with incarceration or death. Here is a sampling of quotes from friendly, lovable, and tolerant global warming heroes and mentors of David Barnhill:
NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm said: “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,”
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland (World Socialist Party leader and avowed hater of capitalism) declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”
In summary, I commend Messrs. Richard Moore and Vern Moore for their excellent effort at telling the absolute truth about that great anthropogenic global warming hoax and I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with them when – and if – Obama sends his private army of brownshirts to arrest us.
For a much clearer understanding of why global warmists are so wrong check out this website linking 1,350-plus Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm: www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html.