“Flawed science as fact is the real danger.”
Charles Battig is a plenty smart physician (a real doctor versus us doctorates) who has carefully studied the climate debate. This ‘talented amateur’ (as in non-climate scientist) knows the hidden assumptions and the non sequiturs behind the alleged case for climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. Now living in Houston, he has been a one-person truth squad to the Houston Chronicle’s New York Times-like editorials on climate.
Now retired, Dr. Battig holds three degress from Tulane University: M.D.; M.S., Electrical Engineering; and B.S., Electrical Engineering. In 2009, Battig was named president of the Piedmont Chapter of Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA–SEEE), a “grassroots organization” founded by climatologist Fred Singer who is also president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
Last week, MasterResource shared Dr. Battig’s forceful email to Chronicle business columnist Chris Tomlinson, a very reasonable fellow who just has not seriously wanted to see that the climate crusade is corrupted knowledge parading as social policy. We simply do not know whether man-made lukewarming if really net negative to constitute a ‘negative externality’ or ‘market failure’ to even begin to get government (and ‘government failure’) involved.
Battig’s published letter from last week follows:
Regarding the editorial Greenhouse gases (we urge the president-elect to reconsider his plan to dismantle a program to cut emissions, “blamed for” is not proof, as the impact of manmade greenhouse gas vs. natural climate change is a blame-game, not scientific fact, even as millions of taxpayer dollars is devoted to academia and government agencies to try to make it fact, the United Nations political policies notwithstanding.
Change has defined climate for billions of years. Now it is a money-making scare tactic.
Recent hottest years? Thank cyclical El Niños for that.
The editorial ignores EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s testimony that the Clean Power Plan would have no measurable impact on global climate and might reduce global temperature by a minuscule 0.01 C, but would make electricity needlessly more expensive.
“Global battle to preserve life as we know it”? Would that be the multitude of labor-saving inventions, medical and pharmaceutical advances, agricultural and transportation advances all powered by inexpensive and reliable fossil-fueled energy, and threatened by government imposition of expensive renewables.
Flawed science as fact is the real danger.
Charles Battig, Houston