Scientists Object to White House Climate Plans

The White House released its Climate Change report earlier this month, and will unveil its greenhouse emissions plan within the next few days. Those favoring the concept that human activity has substantially altered the planetary temperature are joined by those eager to use that belief to expand the federal role in the national economy. The Obama Administration and its supporters maintain that the science behind the issue is a settled fact.

Opposing the President’s proposals are numerous scientists who note that their research and findings, (which are contrary to the conclusions espoused by supporters of the human effect on the global temperature theory) have been wholly ignored. They are joined by those concerned that what they describe as faulty or incomplete evidence is being employed to use global warming as an excuse to enhance governmental authority, establish a more centralized economy, and enrich special interests. Some, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cite the astounding cost of the White House’s preferences, estimated at $50 billion annually, as an independent reason to oppose the plan.

With both the President and the media favoring the views of the climate change adherents, relatively little unbiased information has been made available to the public.  But there are crucial objections that should be noted.

31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition  opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate. P

Even some advocates of global warming have objected to governmental intervention. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, quoted in,  notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for.  He stated that in the January 2014 article that  “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

The President has advocated major policy moves which could substantially and detrimentally impact the American economy and the cost of energy.  Major geopolitical implications will result as non-U.S. providers of  energy sources, such as Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others benefit from it.