OPINION:
Progress-producing debate requires listening to both sides of the story. In the case of climate change, the subject of the United Nations’ 28th Conference of the Parties underway in Dubai, no allowance is given to views contrary to the assumption that human activity constitutes an existential peril for the planet’s climate. While credentials aren’t everything, a lot of hot air is being generated by advocates with questionable expertise.
U.S. climate envoy John Kerry has told the U.N. conferees that, owing to atmospheric emissions, “There shouldn’t be any more coal power plants permitted anywhere in the world.”
His impressive curriculum vitae includes a bachelor’s degree in political science from Yale University, a law degree from Boston College and 28 years in the Senate. Conspicuously absent is any expertise in the hard sciences.
Ditto his boss, President Biden. With five decades in the soft science of political gamesmanship, Mr. Biden has put pen to Mr. Kerry’s opinion and signed off on a Powering Past Coal Alliance, a pact of 57 nations committed to phasing out affordable coal-fired power plants. With the black stuff producing nearly 20% of U.S. electricity in 2022, Mr. Biden’s scheme to kill coal by 2035 could consign Americans to energy poverty.
Pope Francis has also weighed in on pressing climate issues addressed at the U.N. conference. In a speech read by Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, the pontiff declared: “It has now become clear that the climate change presently taking place stems from the overheating of the planet, caused chiefly by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity, which in recent decades has proved unsustainable for the ecosystem.”
The sincerity of this deeply religious man is beyond question, but his scientific credentials are not. Do these luminaries possess the qualifications to impose their climate-related edicts upon the planet?
Seasoned authorities on actual climate science don’t think so. Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus in atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is outspoken in his criticism of the climate hysteria that causes conference attendees to gnash their teeth.
“The minute you hear ‘the science is settled,’ you know something is wrong. Science is never settled,” he said, “And you see these policies have had no impact on [carbon dioxide]. So, they have done nothing to prevent this alleged existential threat, except make people poorer, make society less stable, less resilient. And you can only account for that with either ignorance or sadism.”
Princeton University emeritus professor of atmospheric physics William Happer adds historical context to the current climate trend:
“Climate change is real. It has always existed since the world existed. This particular change, this warming, already began in the 1800s long before the rise of greenhouse gases. The scientific evidence is very clear.”
And John Clauser, who was awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics, asserts that rather than human-caused emissions, cloud cover constitutes the controlling factor in global temperatures.
The U.N.’s climate emergency advocates are dodging the dissent from credible sources.
So long as the climate science debate remains beclouded, Americans should withhold their support for wholesale energy transformation.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.