An Open Letter to Carly Fiorina, Part 1

The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief.” — Jacques Ellul

Carly Fiorina, I’ve been watching your rise in the political world since your 2010 Senate run. I recall how quickly I was impressed by your natural ability as a candidate. I was 21 at the time, and I recall wishing I lived in California so that I could cast my vote for you.

When you lost—I mean, it is California—I always hoped you’d find your way back to the political realm in one way or another. Now you have.

There are people who don’t take you seriously, and that’s at their own peril. Ever since you began hinting at a run for the presidency, I told everyone I know that you had the potential to be a top-tier candidate. After your stellar performance in the debate last Thursday, you’ve finally and rightfully vaulted into the upper-class of candidates.

However, as an ardent conservative, I’m not without my concerns. Out of the seventeen candidates running in the GOP race, you are one of only three that I can see winning the presidency. So, when I saw during your interview with Katie Couric that you appear to believe in anthropogenic climate change, I felt compelled to write this open letter.

You posses a precision and an intelligence that leads me to believe you have a desire to know the truth—no matter what it is—so I hope you read this with an open mind, but also a critical mind. I certainly don’t know everything, and no one aside from God does, but I believe from what I’ve learned that man is not the cause of the changes in our climate. Here’s why.

  1. Despite our continued and massive output of CO2, one of the alleged major contributors to climate change, the earth has not warmed significantly during the last 17 years.

The Economist reports:

“The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.”

If CO2 is indeed a leading cause of climate change—or global warming, as it used to be called—why hasn’t the temperature risen in proportion to the extraordinary emission of CO2 over the last decade or more?

According to Peter Ferrara of Forbes:

“…uncontested global temperature data shows there has been no global warming for 17 years and 8 months now, even though human global CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate that entire time, to unprecedented levels.”

Additionally, Climate Depot reports:

“The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month satellite record.”

As Forbes reports, during the medieval warming period from approximately 950 AD to 1250 AD (followed by the Little Ice Age) temperatures were warmer than they are now. This was prior to the Industrial Revolution, when man began pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is not even to mention the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which are yet further natural phenomena that contribute to natural climate changes.

To return to my original question, if CO2 is such a threat, why has the temperature not risen proportionally to its output?

  1. Regarding alleged extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change.

According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (and this is verifiable elsewhere):

“No Category 3-5 hurricane has made landfall in the United States since 2005, the longest such period since at least 1900.”

In 2013, James Taylor of Forbes reported:

“New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show the past 12 months set a record for the fewest tornadoes in recorded history.”

Even the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) agrees:

“…there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.”

  1. The agenda is driven by the money.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an organization of over 50 scientists, led by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, Dr. Craig D. Idso, Ph.D. in Geography, and Dr. Robert M. Carter, a paleontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 30 years professional experience, is essentially the anti-IPCC.

The NIPCC website explains that they have “no affiliation with and receives no funding from any government agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and not predisposed to conform to any agenda other than pursuing the truth.”

The NIPCC concluded most recently:

“Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.”

But if that’s the case, why are there so many scientists and leaders promoting the climate change narrative? The answer is simple: Money. When scientists are funded by the government through grants, in order to receive those grants, they must toe the line.

Additionally, James Delingpole of Breitbart wrote on August 8th:

“The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines.”

This is big money.

  1. It’s a vote-getter.

The climate change drum continues to be beaten by the left because it gets them votes. They tell their various constituents that the world is dying, that the earth is being radically disrupted by mankind, and that they alone are the ones who care. They tell the voters that the Republicans are the party that will kill the earth with coal, natural gas, and oil—that Republicans don’t care the earth is dying—and that to save the world, we must vote for the Democrats.

This notion plays into people’s innate desire to make an impact. If you could have a part in saving the world, wouldn’t you? That’s the thought process that the left uses. That’s the reason they trumpet the climate change hysteria.

I know you have a critical mind, one that is more than capable of discerning the truth. What I wrote is just a fraction of the evidence against the theory of anthropogenic climate change—because I’m not writing a dissertation. What I hope to achieve with this letter is to show you the other side of the argument in a manner that will speak to your policy.

I hope you find this enlightening and beneficial as you continue to surge in the polls, because I not only want you to be a top-tier candidate, but the top-tier candidate.