If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger, apparently.
Three Democrats on Capitol Hill seem to be following that rule when it comes to “global warming.”
Congressmen Bobby Scott, Raúl Grijalva and Eddie Bernie Johnson have demanded public school teachers around the country reject the 2015 book “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.”
And not just reject it – destroy it.
“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” said Scott in the statement.
He smeared the scientists who wrote the book as “climate deniers” pushing a “false agenda.”
However, one Capitol Hill expert on climate change objects to this attempt at censorship. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., author of “The Greatest Hoax: How The Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” ripped the congressmen for trying to prevent debate on the issue.
“The reason why people want you to destroy books is because they’re threatened by the truth they contain,” Inhofe told WND. “This is why my book, ‘The Greatest Hoax’ should be required reading. It explains how the environmental extremists have co-opted global warming to accomplish all their liberal dreams. It is extremely disappointing that some of my colleagues in the House have asked teachers to destroy a book solely because they don’t like what it says.”
[jwplayer LTx1owly]
Brian Sussman, a talk show host and former meteorologist who wrote “Eco-Tyranny: How The Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,” blasted the fraud he claims underlies the global-warming myth.
“These political con artists claim they’re banning a book questioning human-induced global warming in the name of science, hoping the American people are unfamiliar with the scientific method,” he said.
“Real science addresses a hypothesis – for example, carbon dioxide created by human activity increases the average global temperature – by attempting to prove it wrong. If even a single dent is inflicted the theory must be discarded. The global warming proposition has so many severe dents it looks an old Ford Pinto that’s been compressed in a car crusher.”
Sussman warned that the attempt to censor this one book is only the beginning, and Democrats will eventually move to make “climate denial” illegal.
“They’ve already tried making global-warming denial criminal in my state of California,” he said. “Last year the state senate tried to pass the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, which would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have ‘deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.’ Fortunately the bill failed, but the Democrats in Sacramento will no doubt try again.”
Sussman used his professional background to dismantle a strategy by “elitists” to use “global warming” for their own gain in his earlier book, “Climategate.” He says the reason the global-warming scam is pushed so energetically is because so many stand to personally profit from it.
“As I detailed in both ‘Climategate’ and ‘Eco-Tyranny,’ the world’s elite see global warming as a brilliant way to both make loads of money for their friends and family via green investments, and further the goals of socialism via government-mandated wealth distribution,” Sussman said.
Marc Fitch, the author of “Shmexperts: How Ideology And Power Politics Are Disguised As Science,” saw the lighter side to the Democrats’ heavy handedness.
“First of all, I encourage all Democrats and climate alarmists to buy thousands of copies of ‘Shmexperts.’Â Quality books make for good fires,” he joked.
Yet Fitch said there is a serious issue behind the hysteria of global-warming activists.
“This is emblematic of why climate alarmists are losing the debate – they refuse to have one,” he told WND. “Instead they resort to name-calling, riling up mobs of supporters to denounce things they haven’t even read – just look at the negative reviews of ‘Why Climate Scientists Disagree’ on Amazon – and trying to use government force to shut down the opposing viewpoint.
“It’s not working and it’s gotten to the point where they’ve made themselves look so ridiculous that the average Joe and Jane disregard their imaginary solutions to actually change the Earth’s climate. When people see that one side of a debate is resorting to fear-mongering, lawsuits and personal attacks against scientists who merely question the climate orthodoxy, people know that something isn’t right.”
Fitch outlined a number of problems with the climate alarmists’ case.
“First and foremost, none of their predictions have come true,” he said. “Their climate models are so off the mark that it isn’t prudent to make massive political and social changes based on those predictions.
“Secondly, the ’97 percent of scientists agree’ line is false and inconsequential. Everyone knows that just because 97 percent of any group agrees on something doesn’t make it true. Plus, the purveyors of this ‘consensus’ act like it’s enough that ‘climate scientists’ agree. What about physicists and economists, chemists and marine biologists? If I were to ask Christians whether or not there’s a God, I’d probably get about 97 percent consensus. The treatment of any fellow scientist as a heretic for questioning anything about global warming shows that this phenomenon is less science and more religion.
“Thirdly, people have had enough of literally everything being blamed on climate change; the Syrian war, hurricanes, lack of hurricanes, diabetes. Anything that could in some way be tied to climate change, they do so and then call it ‘science.’ I don’t think people are buying it anymore. It’s been too long, too vicious, too hyperbolic, and at this point, too dumb. So they react by telling teachers not to read a book.
“And finally, who are these three politicians to say what is and isn’t science? In their world, science is whatever they agree with politically. What are they afraid of? If they truly believe that the science is correct and the research will stand the test of reality, why do they treat any question like it’s about to topple their house of cards?”
Fitch, like Inhofe and Sussman, believes the Democrats’ action has proven the “global warming” movement is built not on science but on faith.
“They are essentially telling people not to make up their own minds,” he stated. “If your argument must be guarded against any and all debate, you don’t have much of an argument, no matter how much you say it’s scientific.
“These kind of reactions remind me of a quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald: ‘The strongest guard is placed at the gateway to nothing.'”
