Are my critics upfront about global warming?

After reading the double-barrel critiques of Don Flood's September column, Jim Henry's current letter (Sept. 12) along with the previous ones, several points seem salient to their global warming position.

They never admit to error on their side and are never in doubt. They also couldn't care less about the trillions of dollars to be spent long-term for little return (.2 degree by 2100). The taxpayer be damned. They'll just tax carbon more. After all, this is about saving the planet as Mr. Flood has said.

They are (may I say) zealous in their beliefs, but sidestep important questions that I have mentioned. Here's some of them:

• No response to Al Gore advisor Jim Hansen's statement about believing in renewables rapidly phasing us off fossil fuels is like "believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."

• They ignore Professor Ian Plimer, emeritus professor of earth sciences and mining geology, saying that, "CO2 does not drive atmospheric temperature change...geology shows that all six of the great ice ages were initiated when atmospheric CO2 was far higher than at present...".

• Have no comment on meteorologist Joe Bastardi's geological timescale graph comparing temperature and CO2 that does not show direct correlation over the years (https://patriotpost.us/opinion/48675).

• Are silent on celebrated climatologist Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which eliminated the medieval warming period to sell the story that warming in the 20th century was new and unique and came only from man-made CO2.

• Don't mention the Climate Gate scandal or Phil Jones, contributor to the 2007 IPCC Climate report, saying that, "Basic problem is that all (climate) models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds..."

However, they spend time diverting us by attacking Anthony Watts (and me) repeatedly because of his lack of acceptable climate research credentials.

But, why not the same standard for top zealot, Al Gore? According to Wikipedia, he took one class in college on oceanography and global warming then went to divinity school; left for law school; then left that to run for Congress and all the rest.

By your standards, isn't he just a celebrity politician/entrepreneur with no climate science degree? His Nobel Prize and Gramma gifts notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, acclaimed climatologist Dr. Judith Curry is debunked by Mr. Henry as being "opposed by about 97 per cent of current researchers."

But, what about this 97 percent consensus statistic which is now sacrosanct liturgy of politicians and researchers?

When you look at the Cook study (which a critic sent to me) from which that figure comes, it shows the results of only "11944 abstracts" that they admit is "only a fraction of the climate literature...128,440 papers."

Untold is that the 97.1 percent figure is arrived at by excluding, from the already small sample, 7930 (66 percent) responses with a "No AGW (man-made warming) position!" That means the results are based on just 3 percent of all available papers and judged by, they say, "raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW."

Is this credible? Where's the independent study without bias or response manipulation? And, why so many "No positions" if the science is crystal clear?

Then, there's the energy industry subsidies complaint of Mr. Henry with which I basically agree. Though, at least, they pay taxes. Reportedly, in 2012 Exxon and Chevron paid $45.2 billion in federal, state and foreign taxes (enough to pay for the climate research noted below).

Not so, the climate research tax-free subsidies reported to be $2.6 billion annually, totaling $42.5 billion over the years. Or, the $5 billion in handouts to crony-capitalist Elon Musk; the $7500 federal rebate (plus more from some states) for his wealthy Tesla buyers.

Then there's the Delaware taxpayer subsidized (labor and electricity), trendy Tesla charging stations in Lewes to draw the rich elites. Don't forget that 75 percent of that electricity in your Tesla, Prius et al. is produced by those nasty hydrocarbons (coal and natural gas).
Lastly, not mentioned by my critics or 60 Minutes, is the news, reported by James Delingpole, of an August 2017 "sailing expedition to the North Pole to raise awareness of global warming. It was forced to turn back, 590 nautical miles short of its destination, after the yachts found their passage blocked by large quantities of... unexpected... sea ice, in the Arctic no less." Who knew?

That was not the first example...there are three others. Remember, "the December 2013 expedition to Antarctica – led by an Australian alarmist, Chris Turney, one of the correspondents in the Climategate scandal – which had to be called off after becoming stuck in ice which Turney insisted could not have been predicted."

What, the climate models failed again?

It makes me wonder if my critics are totally upfront with us about global warming? They don't even explain why they changed the name to climate change, though I think we can guess.

Geary Foertsch
Rehoboth Beach