Sixteen Scientists Dispute Global Warming, Concerned About Expensive Climate Change Studies
I don't believe everything I hear. When it came to Y2K, I didn't get caught up in the hype. Sure I was a little curious, but I didn't prepare for the next stone age. I think the Global Warming scare is much the same. According to these scientists, temperatures haven't risen in the last 10 years. There is A LOT of money to be made by groups and organizations.
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Also, in the letter, the author points out that young scientists and climatologists are afraid to speak up against the global warming conspiracy because they are afraid of losing out on promotions, or even getting fired.
They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
I think the message from these scientists shouldn't be misunderstood as go ahead an pollute as much as you can. It should be more along the lines of, "hey let's take a chill pill." Let's spend the money where it needs to be spent. Here is their advice for politicians.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Check out this video of one of the scientists explaining their conclusion, where incidentally, the interviewer says the word "Ahh" about 93 times. (I counted... slow day at the office.)