Climate Scientist to Rick Scott: Alarmism Is Not Pro-Life
Accomplished climate scientist Neil Frank sent Florida Gov. Rick Scott a letter explaining why global warming alarmism is not “pro-life.” Frank responded to assertions by liberal climate activists that a pro-life abortion agenda requires global warming activism.
Regarding the asserted abortion-climate equivalency, Frank responded, “Nothing could be further from the truth. The ‘pro-life’ controversy is one of the most important moral challenges in the history of this great nation. On the contrary, man-made global warming is based on a very controversial debate that has not been settled. Unfortunately, the science of the debate has been high-jacked by those seeking a political and profit advantage.”
Frank is one of the most accomplished atmospheric scientists in the world. Among his accomplishments, he served for more than a decade as Director of the National Hurricane Center.
The atmospheric scientist debunked the primary justification for global warming restrictions; the assertion that global warming is causing more frequent and deadly extreme weather events.
“Just the opposite is happening,” Frank explained. “Dr. Ryan Maue at Florida State University has shown that there has been a global reduction in the number of cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes, and in their accumulated energy, over the last 30 years. In Florida, it has been 8 years since the last major hurricane. As you know, it has not always been that way. Rev. Hescox is probably not aware that Florida was hit by 6 major hurricanes from 1944-1950.”
Rev. Mitchell Hescox, referenced by Frank, is president of the Evangelical Environmental Network. The Evangelical Environmental Network is a group of liberal self-professed evangelicals who frequently champion environmental activism while rarely fulfilling their evangelical self-description.
Frank explained how global warming alarmism — far from being “pro-life” — is taking precious resources away from life preservation and life improvement, and instead squandering those resources of ineffective environmental myths.
“Over the past 15 years, the U.S. has spent $150 billion on global warming, and this year’s budget calls for another $18 billion. A lot of the money went into the development of “Green Energy.” What do we have to show for this effort? Let me make two observations. First, we now have numerical models that cannot accurately predict the future temperature of the earth for even 15 years, or even retrodict it for the past 30 years; and, second, we have numerous failed “green energy” projects, including Solyndra, which went bankrupt after being subsidized by the government for a half billion dollars,” Frank observed.
“What if we had taken a portion of that money and applied it to the horrible living conditions in parts of Africa?” Frank asked. “Millions of those lives would have been saved.”
In a case of very curious timing, the Evangelical Environmental Network decided to publicly pressure Scott just as liberal Democrat Charlie Crist and multi-billionaire activist Tom Steyer are launching political attacks against Scott for not being alarmist enough on global warming issues.