Watermelons: Wrong on the Science and Indifferent to the Poor

HAPPY EARTH DAY!!! --- NOT!

Watermelons (those people's whose political ideology is "green on the outside, red on the inside") are celebrating the feel-good philosophy of environmentalism today. Our children all over this great (and mostly green) country are being indoctintated to believe horrible science that maligns capitialism and industry. Socialist have hijacked language of enviromental protectionism to promote thier political ideology without any realization that their platform causes more problems than it will fix.

For many years, those with a political ax to grind told us that global warming was "for real", the evidence was "in," and the debate was "over." They have repeated this line so often enough that many folks (especially many teachers in our governtment indoctination centers) began to believe it. However, unrelenting repetition of an inaccuracy does not make it true.

So what evidence do adherents of global warming dogma rely upon? They don't rely on historical temperature records - which show that climate has always fluctuated and that there has been no warming trend over the last 50 years. They don't rely on NASA satellite data or weather balloon data which also show that there is no warming. They don't rely upon polar ice cap data because the ice caps are growing thicker in some places and thinner in others. Facts presented in the Testimony of Dr. Fred Singer before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change support these points.

So, if the facts don't support gloabal warming, then what do global warming enthusiasts rely upon? Computer models - ones that do not work. These computer models cannot accurately "back-predict" the climate trends of the last 100 years. If the models worked, then we should be able to input the data from the last century, and the computer model - if it worked - would accurately "predict" current global climate conditions. But they cannot. These models produce wildly different and spectacularly incorrect results. In fact, environmental scientists at the University of Virginia reviewed and tested these computer models and found that they produced no better results than a table of randomly selected numbers applied to climate data. Can we really trust computer models to predict the climate 100 years from now when we can't even get a computer model to accurately predict this week's weather?

If the climate models can't do any better than a roll of the dice, should we rely on them? Should we base costly public policy on a crap shoot? Should regulatory schemes based on these faulty numbers force Americans to pay more to heat and cool their homes, feed and clothe their families, and drive to and from work and school?

This brings me to my second point. Global warming enthusiasts apparently don't care about the poor. This may sound harsh, but facts speak loudly. Millionaires may not care if their monthly heating bill increases by $100 or their grocery bill increases by $185. They can afford it. But the poor cannot.

During a harsh winter, should public policy based on the roll of a dice force poor seniors or single mothers with small children to choose between heating and eating? These questions are particularly troubling when the regulations that would force these cruel choices on the poor are based on junk science and chance numbers.

These are real life issues, not silly hypotheticals. A couple of years ago, Senator Jim Jeffords (I-Vt), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, held hearings on a bill, S.B. 556, that would implement much of the regulatory scheme envisioned by global warming enthusiasts. The committee invited J. Thomas Mullen who leads Catholic Charities in Cleveland, Ohio to testify about the impact on the poor of the proposed bill. Mr. Mullen's organization serves over 600,000 needy children and families, senior citizens, persons with disabilities and homeless persons.

Mr. Mullen testified that a recent study "reported that one-quarter of Americans [have] problems paying for several basic necessities. [C]urrently 23\% have difficulty in paying their utilities - that is, one out of four Americans." Mr. Mullen went on to say that if the global warming regulatory agenda were implemented, "we could see the difficulty in Cleveland reach beyond one out of two people and families not able to pay utilities...."

Mr. Mullen emphasized that two groups are most vulnerable. First, is the elderly. "[A]pproximately one half (49.4\%) of persons over 65 years old [in Cleveland] have incomes less that $15,000 per year.... The second group that ... will be hurt similarly by this is children. In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in poverty and are in a family of a single female head of household. These children will suffer further loss of basic needs as their moms are forced to make choices of whether to pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill or ... buy food.... These are not choices any senior citizen, child, or, for that matter, person in America should make."

Yet, these are precisely the sorts of decisions that global warming enthusiasts are attempting to force on the poor. Lousy science and indifference to the poor -- that is the legacy of global warming adherents.

Mr. Mullen concluded, "I ask the [Senate] to look carefully at the ramifications of [the global warming regulatory agenda] and its impact on employment and energy costs. We have many vulnerable people ... across America who cannot carry the burden of this legislation." Well said Mr. Mullen. Let's hope the Senate was listening.