The letter from Martin C. Fredricks IV published March 15 concerning President Trump’s recent appointment of a climate change panel was unfair. Fredricks stated that Trump is attempting to counter the climate change consensus by appointing his own “hand-picked” scientists. For Fredricks, the new panel would “create different rules” to obtain “alternative facts.” In other words, anything the panel concludes would be “fake” and eventually “harm the United States and nations around the world in devastating ways.”
Fredricks relies on “real scientists” on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program to support his beliefs. I wonder what makes these scientists “real.” Is it possible these scientists were “hand-picked?” And isn’t it possible the “real scientists” who assessed the pending catastrophic climate change were influenced by the left? After all, they were funded by the United Nations and by many liberal universities. In evaluating climate models, the IPCC noted, “The ability of a climate model to make future projections cannot be directly evaluated.” It was concluded that clouds may cause errors in the climate change projections and may cancel out most of the forcing effects of greenhouse gases. There are many other natural factors like solar variability and water vapor that influence climate that are never discussed.
I believe global climate change is a propaganda tool the left uses to infuse fear, fueled by hysteria and predictions of devastation and the ultimate demise of the planet. I believe human-caused climate change is based on a lie that has been repeated so much that it is accepted as truth. It is no longer questioned. It becomes "settled" science.
Many climate scientists have serious questions about the political rush to judgment. Skepticism in the American Meteorological Society regarding man-made global warming is well over 50 percent. More than 31,000 “real” scientists have signed a petition rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming. Since there is conflicting opinions by many scientists, shouldn’t we do more studies before making drastic changes to our economic health and our way of life?
Not long ago we were striving to be energy independent. We have now achieved it. Regulating carbon emissions will definitely destroy our energy industry and decrease energy independence.
Gov. Tim Walz recently endorsed legislation that would require Minnesota’s utilities to provide 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. That means we will no longer harness fossil fuels such as coal and oil to heat our homes in Minnesota. Is it worth spending billions and billions of dollars on something we find out later has no effect on climate?
The bottom line is there is no conclusive evidence that regulating carbon emissions will have any affect on our climate. To think we can control climate might be foolish and wasteful. Common sense tells us that we should get as many facts as possible before we severely damage our economy and decrease our standard of living. Trump is doing just that by appointing a new climate panel to obtain more facts. To me, that is responsible planning for the future.