Sixteen leaders of the scientific and technical communities have signed a statement in the Wall Street Journal condemning the man-made climate-change movement as nothing but an enterprise to increase the wealth and power of its leaders.
Their statement is timely in view of the fact that most voters still believe in man-caused global warming despite the accumulating evidence that it’s a hoax. As pollster Scott Rasmussen reported earlier this month: “Belief that global warming is a serious problem is at its highest level in two-and-half-years…. (A) survey of likely voters finds that 64% say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, including 30% who say it’s very serious.”
The signers of the statement refuting the hoax wrote in part:
Why is there so much passion about global warming?…. There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question ‘cui bono?’ Or the modern update, ‘Follow the money.’ 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….
(T)he oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed…. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now….
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse….
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy…
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.