Gingrich reignites Climate Change Controversy

“Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.” Mark Twain

Does a leopard change its spots?  Does a tiger change its strips?

Newt Gingrich is what you might call a striped leopard or a spotted tiger.  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 December 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 rain maker 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 US Department of Agriculture.

Isn’t NASA about space exploration and the DOA 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 man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. These dissenting

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.  It is bunk!

Remember, the more you subsidize something, the more you are going to get of it.   Stop!


One thought on “Gingrich reignites Climate Change Controversy

  1. In 1616, the Inquisition branded astronomer Galileo a heretic, showed him the instruments of torture, and he recanted his book describing how the Earth orbited the Sun. By 1632, the Pope was man enough to admit the mistake, allow the book to be published and the Inquisition backed down. Galileo was dead by then but they made the gesture.

    Today, the roles are reversed. Christian and Jewish scientists are at the forefront of exciting and dynamically-evolving theories about Intelligent Design. Yet when a Pennsylvania high school announces to students in 2004 that a book about Intelligent Design is available in the library, the ACLU sues them successfully for separation of church and state. “No Intelligence Allowed”, as the film by Ben Stein says.

    Thoughtful weather scientists regardless of faith are now challenging the coerced orthodoxy of Global Warming. Today’s inquisitors oppose the freedom to question dogma and have new instruments of torture: loss of academic jobs, status, tenure, and excoriating ridicule in the community.

    James Delingpole calls these climate dogmatists, “Watermelons” because they are green on the outside and red on the inside. And indeed, many Cold War era lefties made their new home in the green movement.

    Our job is to continue to insist on open debate, free exchange of ideas in academia, and oppose the closing of our collective mind. A lie cannot be coerced forever and if we persist in searching for the truth, today’s Inquisition will be broken like in 1632.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s