America needs President Trump’s Climate Science Committee

Independent scientists must review alarmist “science” that is driving anti-fossil fuel policies

John Droz

America is in the midst of a cataclysmic battle – and yet you’ve likely heard very little about it.

Right now, the 30-year US global warming fight is coming to a pivotal juncture – within the next few days. It is vital that we take immediate action to support President Trump on an important initiative.

Dr. William Happer (an eminently qualified scientist in the White House) has proposed the Presidential Committee on Climate Science [or Presidential Commission on Climate Security] (PCCS).

The PCCS will bring together multiple qualified scientists who will review such significant issues as global warming’s alleged impact on national security, agriculture, sea levels and extreme weather. Their assignment will be to separate real, evidence-based science from agenda-driven political science.

Those who want a genuine scientific assessment of global warming / climate change claims fully support the PCCS.

They know claims that American and the world face imminent disaster from soaring planetary temperatures, rising seas, more frequent and extreme storms and droughts, species extinctions and other human-caused climate calamities have never been subjected to full-throttled scientific review in a public forum. That’s because every attempt to have such a review has been opposed and silenced.

Those who oppose a real scientific assessment of climate chaos claims are against the PCCS. Not surprisingly, so far the most vocal and dominant voices oppose any scientific review of their claims. (See here, here and here.)

They know their “science” is based on computer models and is contradicted by real-world evidence.

We need to make it clear to the President that citizens are following the PCCS matter, and that citizens fully support this excellent idea. There are two ways to send the President a message on this vital topic:

Phone the White House comment line: 1-202-456-1111

Email the White House explaining your support using this link.

Doing both would be even better!

The President’s decision is expected within the week, so please do this quickly.

To give you some perspective on the PCCS matter, I wrote two new documents:

1) Answers to some of the PCCS critics’ objections, and

2) Background on the 30-some year history of US climate alarmism (and how the PCCS fits in).

I hope there will be a segment about the PCCS on Fox News, an article or editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and more sensible articles on other media outlets (like this, this, this, and this).

These faulty to even fraudulent global warming and climate change claims are the driving force behind the Green New Deal’s plans to terminate fossil fuel use, ban cattle raising, and eliminate cars and airplanes; force us to rely on wind and solar power that would blanket millions of acres with turbines and panels; and replace our free enterprise system with socialist policies that would take money from you – and give it to someone else.

Get involved. Write to President Trump – and ask him to appoint his PCCS immediately.

John Droz, Jr. is a physicist and director of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), which promotes energy policies and programs that are technically, economically and environmentally sound.

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “America needs President Trump’s Climate Science Committee

  1. Hear Hear! In whatever country you are in, write your local leaders and tell why they must do the same thing.

    Whomever is against a scientific review of the state of climate science must have something to hide.

    • Whomever is against a scientific review of the state of climate science must have something to hide.
      Eloquence! How fast can we get that on billboards and bumperstickers?
      Maybe an e-mail campaign…

    • “settled science” is political, not science – They only cite the supply side, not the demand side of CO2 (Plant food), They only talk about the affects on temperature from CO2 raise, never the affects on agriculture (Every greenhouse operator knows increased CO2 = increased crop yield.)

      There are two very simple facts the Liberals will not acknowledge:

      #1 This Earth can only sustain 2 billion people without burning fossil fuel – John Deere does not run on batteries… so, what to do with 5 billion dead bodies?

      #2 The “deal” Trump wisely backed us out of would have taxed USA and sent this money to the #1 and #4 producers of CO2 – Chairman Mao’s China, and India…

      Three very HUGE issues with her GND that any 6th grader would point out –

      #1 – Even IF she could get our airline industry eliminated in 10 years, the airlines owned by China, Russia, Cuba, etc will be happy to fly Americans across the world’s oceans, from Canada / Mexico…. (Think about the 50K TSA workers who voted Democrat, but will be out of work)

      #2 – Elimination of ALL fossil fuel in 10 years means we can no longer make steel as it requires COAL to pull the oxygen out of the melt. You can melt metal with electric furnaces, but you can not MAKE steel without coal.

      #3 – without fossil fuel, 5 billion people will starve to death – John Deere does not run on batteries.

  2. In MN, the governor announced that MN will be fossil free by 2050.

    I can’t tell if his plan includes electric blankets run off solar panels during winter…the cognitive dissonance is astounding.

    • “MN will be fossil free by 2050”
      Most of us now considered fossils will be dead by that time in IL also.
      None the less, fossil free zones will discriminate against the aged. 👴

      • Recent and ongoing cold spell. I see natural gas futures rising as anomalous temps drop.

  3. I tried to send the notice to the White House but it wouldn’t go through as it said “Provide proper email address”. The address was correct, but it wouldn’t accept it.

  4. I was sent a census letter from the RNC. I hate polls and surveys. I will send this one back with my opinion though.

  5. A letter and/or a phone call to your congress critters can make a difference, especially if you can persuade a bunch of your buddies to do the same. Individual letters and calls have a multiplier effect that organized petitions don’t get. link

  6. The IPCC was charged with investigating man made climate change. Imagine how easy it would be for an effort to verify natural climate effects.

  7. My message as follows got through OK to https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

    Thank you Mr President.
    The whole world needs your climate science committee and fast, before the lefty nutters destroy the entire western world, which is actually the UN plan.
    Regards
    Bob Keon
    AU

  8. Mann live on TWC….CA forest fires and winter weather due to…wait for it…..Climate Change!!! He said “We think… fires are due to CC” He offered no proof.

  9. Excellent and important article.

    My only suggestion is ask other sites such as Jo Nova and Manhattan Contrarian to publicise it.

    America, you are the only hope of saving the world. Again!!

  10. I nominate the following to the PCCS (a.k.a. Red Team)

    Richard Lindzen – atmospheric physics
    Judith Curry – climatology
    Roy Spencer – meteorology
    Patrick Moore – ecology
    Susan Crockford – zoology
    Don Easterbrook – geology
    Chris Essex – mathematical physics
    Sallie Baliunas – astrophysics
    Tony Heller – data analysis
    Steve McIntyre – statistics

    • You are missing marine sciences in that list and botanists. In fact, you need more natural sciences on that list–biology, botany, evolutionary biology, paleontology (these folks especially). No biologist in the world thinks that CO2 is bad and if they do, they need to go burn their degree.

      You need a chemist too….preferably one specializing in chemical oceanography.

      And you need a PR person on that list–someone especially skilled in keeping a position based on facts that can turn any argument against the true findings on their head with a few simple sentences. This is essential as well because the news outlets are going to have a field day with this.

      But more importantly–every single person on whatever the committee is has to be seen as an individual contributor, not as part of a conspiracy to undermine politics.

      • JJ– In an ideal world your suggestion is obviously important.

        I have a copy of a letter (15 January 2010) from 32 Louisiana marine scientists (mostly biologists) to then Governor Jindal mostly based on 2007 IPCC work. While they have a good point about sea level problems in Louisiana, they don’t seem to know that these are overwhelming despite the carbon dioxide levels and that before the concern about possible cooling, the possible effects of rising temperatures were studied. I have a paper from 1954. Remember that biologists started this, some now gone would surely regret the current situation.

        Be careful who you trust, some are innocent, some are absolutely certain, some are otherwise, and some just ignore other work and individuals not agreeing. The best scientists have more important things to do, like survival. The concept of supporting your right to disagree did not completely disappear, but needs considerable revival. This would not mean keeping “believers” off such committees, they might show their ignorance, and besides that is the only fair way.

    • A couple of Historians and Archaeologists wouldn’t go astray to compare the dendrod to the published historical documents and conditions.

  11. “1) Answers to some of the PCCS critics’ objections…”

    What’s missing is this document is that there are TWO related questions:
    A) What is going on with the climate?
    B) What should we do about it, if anything?

    Answering the second question requires answers to the first question, but it also incorporates economics, decision-making under uncertainty, strategy, and risk preferences, with justification for action being commensurate with the certainty level in the answers to the first question.

  12. Get yourself a heatgun and a bucket of cold water and apply the heat to the surface of the water and note that your kitchen does not fill with steam, I’ll leave the rest to our prodigious intellects.

Comments are closed.