USA Today - The Real Climate Embarrassment: Opposing Views

Op-Ed

The greatest embarrassment in the debate of human-driven climate change is that the administration -- along with congressional Democrats and radical environmentalists -- has found it easier to attack the messengers than the content of their message.

Alarmists have been critical of anyone with opposing views but have failed to be forthcoming with the data and science behind their hysteria. Despite inconclusive data, the administration continues to rely upon one-sided information to justify costly regulations.

In the event that scientists express some uncertainty of man-driven climate change, alarmists are quick to target dissenters, imposing a chilling effect on scientific inquiry.

OUR VIEW: Senate Republicans fiddle while world warms

In February, congressional Democrats did just that, targeting 100 universities, private companies, trade groups and non-profit organizations about their climate research funding, while failing to consider the principles of sound science.

Climate science should be weighed primarily on its merits -- when the work can be reproduced and independent experts have a fair chance to validate the findings, regardless of funding sources. Instead, Democrats tried to silence legitimate, intellectual and scientific inquiry.

Beyond the concerns with the science and alarmists' attempt to dismiss opposing viewpoints, EPA has been secretive -- if not downright reticent -- with many of its plans to regulate climate change.

EPA has politicized rules in apparent avoidance of public debate and criticism; it has failed to hold forums in states that will bear the brunt of new rules; and it has gone above and beyond to operate behind closed doors with its social cost of carbon estimates.

Who is the real embarrassment here?

The debate on man-driven climate change is not over. Alarmists are distracting Americans from the pain the Obama administration's regulations will inflict on our economy while failing to make a significant impact on climate change.

Let's not forget the words of MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, who said carbon regulation is a bureaucrat's dream because "if you control carbon, you control life."

Source