From Forbes

Opinion by

Peter Ferrara​

Dear Readers:  We have documented excesses in policy and deficiencies in decision making owing to the 'global warming' faith crowd.  

Still, we must prize facts and science over politics in our search for 'Endless Progress'.  In this spirit, we ask our more knowledgeable friends to help us with a response or rebuttal to this reaction to Ferrara's commentary.    -dh

(Our Comment: The Obama Administration departments — including DOD — base many changing policies on a bureaucratic faith in the siren calls of global warming.  

Upon the "environmental protection/global warming" assumptions are based programs causing vast damage to American employment, economic health and national security–while building big government bureaucracies and political dependencies on the Executive branch.  

This explains why the Administration and its allies will fight to the death to impugn the reputation of global warming critics.  After all, if the climate is actually growing cooler or simply cycling through another historic period of 'cooling/warming', how can government justify its damaging policies?  

Ferrara's Forbes column may represent an inconvenient truth to disciples of global warming–but integrity demands that we hear a response to the challenge laid out in the box above.  After all, even if it can be shown that warming is a long term trend, we would still demand — in the name of science — proof that mankind (and not the oceans, etc.) were the major contributor of greenhouse gasses.  

Then, if man is proved to be the principle cause, is America wisely adopting policies that are reasonable and do not threaten to bankrupt the country while major carbon producers in the developing world are making little to no effort to contain carbon output?  

Lastly, even if the United States (i.e. with over $17 trillion dollars in short term debt and over $90 trillion in unfunded liabilities)  bankrupts itself in search of the holy climate grail, will the end result of global domination by powerful green house gas emitters produce a more sustainable world?   

We do not advocate one political position over another or one extreme view over another (i.e. except that as our dear readers know, we do not deny that we are dedicated to the intent and protections of the Constitution of the Unites States and its precedent, Declaration of Independence).  And we do not seek compromise for the sake of 'getting along'.  Instead, we search for reason, a place between excess of bureaucracy and deficiency of precaution — which which Aristotle might still today characterize as the "Golden Mean".  -dh) 

Ferrara's words, continued:  "…future generations of scientists will look back and say this is the moment when we took the political out of the political science of "climate change," and this is how we did it. Real scientists know that these 50 co-authors are real scientists. That is transparent from the tenor of the report itself.

"The publication is "double peer reviewed," in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama's own EPA, which issued its "endangerment finding" legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board, as required by federal law. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them?

"The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.'s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind's emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result "is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being." The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes."