December 18, 2006
Lord Monckton Takes Climate Change Thugs to Task
Posted by Dave Blount at December 18, 2006 4:09 PM
Kudos to Lord Monckton, formerly a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, for calling climate change fanatics on the thuggish tactics they have been using in an attempt to impose consent on their hysterical dogma.
Monckton has sent the pair of moonbat Senators a blistering open letter of his own (PDF). Some highlights:
The US Constitution guarantees the right of free speech. It is inappropriate for elected Senators such as yourselves to suggest that any person should refrain from exercising that right, as you have done in your letter of October 27 to the CEO of ExxonMobil. That great corporation has exercised its right of free speech – and with good reason – in openly providing support for scientists and groups that dare to question how much the increased concentration of CO2 in the air may warm the world. You must honour the Constitution, withdraw your letter and apologize to ExxonMobil, or resign as Senators.
You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to "senior elected and appointed government officials" who disagree with your opinion. You are elected officials yourselves. If you do not believe in the right of persons within the United States to exercise their fundamental right under the world's greatest Constitution to petition their elected representatives for the redress of their grievances, then you have no place on Capitol Hill. You must go. [...]
Why should ExxonMobil, or anyone, place the slightest credence in a body [the UN's climate change panel] that [...] has manipulated or ignored the truth, has suppressed the participation of dissenters, has failed to address scientists' legitimate concerns about the declared bias of its lead authors, and has failed to apologize even for its most blatant errors? Lord Lawson of Blaby, a distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, has called for the outright abolition of the UN's climate-change panel. I concur. We need honest science. Therefore we do not need the UN.
You suggest that ExxonMobil should "promote technological innovation" to address what you call the "global problem" of climate change. If you regard the increasing concentration of CO2 as a "problem", which it is not, the quickest way to get the world to address the problem is to disband the UN's lavishly funded climate change panel and get the science right. Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, "obfuscate" the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the "consensus" argument, and they compel necessary corrections such as the impending and highly significant more-than-50% cut in the UN's high-end projection for the increase in sea level to 2100. [...]
You acknowledge the effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment to the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom. [...]
There is a consensus that there is more CO2 in the air than there was; that humankind may be to blame; and that some warming may result. That is all. There is no consensus on how fast the world will warm, or when or even whether any "disastrous" consequences will ensue. If, in any area of this debate, you hold that the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in going beyond the limited extent which I have described, please notify me in your reply and, in each such area, I shall point you to peer-reviewed science that casts strong, reasonable, reasoned and well-founded doubt upon what you imagine is the "consensus". [...]
I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call "disastrous" and "calamitous" consequences.
Normally foreign meddling in domestic affairs gets under the skin, but Lord Monckton is so right, you can't help but tip your hat to him. Besides, climate change hysteria is a global issue if ever there was one.
On a tip from Bill V.