“Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”
Does a leopard change its spots? Does a tiger change its stripes?
Newt Gingrich is what you might call a striped tiger or a spotted leopard. When it comes to what some see as the impending doom of climate change, the former speaker of the House is trying to have it both ways.
On Dec. 20, at a campaign stop in Iowa, he looked more like a deer than a leopard or tiger – a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming vehicle. When confronted by a woman who expressed concern about a chapter on climate change being written for his post-election book on the environment by climate change apologist Katherine Hayhoe, Newt began backpedaling. “That’s not going to be in the book,” he said. “We didn’t know that they were doing that, and we told them to kill it.” Ah, the proverbial “we.” Who are/is the we? The book’s editor, some unknown puppeteer who is out of sight pulling all the strings, or Gingrich himself?
“Climate change” is the term now used by doomsayers in the scientific community instead of “global warming” to scare us out of our hard-earned cash. It incorporates global warming and everything else that is or could be affected by greenhouse gas emissions. As temperatures around the globe continue to go down, the amount of this spending is harder to justify.
The climate changes. It is a fact of nature. Do we need to spend billions in this country and even more around the globe to protect us against this reality? Hayhoe believes we do. If we didn’t, she would have to look for more productive work.
College professors like Hayhoe do very little, if any, teaching anymore. They spend their waking hours researching the obvious. This drives up the cost of higher education, government and – as more and more regulations are handed down – the cost of most everything we buy. When it comes to securing government grants, Hayhoe is a rainmaker for Texas Tech University.
Let’s be clear about just how much money she and her cohorts are taking out of the public treasury. It’s over $4 billion a year, and it increases every year at an alarming rate. The National Science Foundation leads this gravy train, followed by the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Air and Space Administration, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Isn’t NASA about space exploration and the USDA about farming? As space exploration fell out of favor and it became harder to justify a Department of Agriculture, the bureaucrats in these agencies began jumping onto the latest cause du jour. Who can blame them?
Is the government giving out any grant money to climate-change skeptics?
Hayhoe pitched a temper tantrum via Twitter when she learned that her work had been unceremoniously eliminated from the Gingrich book. “Among climate scientists – people who spend their lives researching our world – there is no debate regarding the reality of climate change and the fact that humans are the primary cause.” She blamed talk-show hosts for perpetuating the idea that there is no scientific consensus on this issue.
What is scientific consensus? Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.
However, Hayhoe’s outlandish claim went further than most scientists would dare.
Those scientists who value their credibility will say only that there is a consensus that human activity is a “significant factor,” not a primary factor or even a major factor.
What is significant? Five percent or even 10 percent?
And, does that justify borrowing billions of dollars to finance all these unrelated, duplicative studies or passing draconian regulations that cripple our economy so that Hayhoe and her friends can live large and feel good about themselves?
Climate Depot has a list of more than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe who have now challenged manmade-global-warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. These dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of U.N. scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 “Summary for Policymakers.”
No doubt there will be many more peer reviewed articles and national and international gatherings of those who are at the feeding trough of the green extreme who will reach “consensus” on this issue. It is in their economic best interest to do so – but it is bunk!
Remember, the more you subsidize something, the more you are going to get of it. Stop!