From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

Two prominent left-wing campaign organizations have filed suit to suppress and censor the assessment that five climate science experts recently provided to the Department of Energy.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) filed their complaint in Massachusetts District Court.

Read their full complaint at CFACT.org.

The DOE climate assessment must terrify the climate/Left.

Their lawsuit does not demand damages, but silence.

The principal relief the EDF and the UCS demand is, in effect, that Energy Secretary Wright be enjoined from thinking, speaking, or accepting public comments about the most sound and unbiased climate assessment to grace the world of science in years.

What has pushed the usual climate suspects into such a tizzy?

Why must the scientific opinions of these five climate experts be suppressed?

We posted an excellent write-up by Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, who served at the highest level at NOAA, on CFACT.org:

“In a stark contrast with the ‘mainstream view of climate science,’ the DOE report is unbiased in its objective assessment of the costs, efficacy, and collateral impacts of any ‘climate action’, considering the nation’s need for reliable and affordable energy. The fundamental physics of the global carbon cycle dictate that even if emissions were to stop tomorrow, it would take decades to see a meaningful reduction in the global CO2 concentration and hence human influences on the climate. Thus, the authors conclude accordingly that even drastic local actions to reduce GHG emissions will have negligible effects, such that calling unilateral U.S. reductions ‘combating climate change’ reflects a serious misunderstanding of the scale of the issue.”

The exaggerations and misrepresentations that climate pressure groups push every day collapse under fair and impartial examination.

The DOE climate assessment is a “the emperor has no clothes” moment.

How about this howler? EDF and UCS complain that the climate working group didn’t include THEM, and wasn’t “fairly balanced in terms of their points of view.” Climate discussion that isn’t fairly balanced? What would that be like?

As Rear Admiral Gallaudet sums it up:

“For too long, the American people have been fed an unrealistic narrative that climate change is an existential threat that only drastic reductions in fossil fuel use will solve. Secretary Wright has finally got it right, and it’s about time that the U.S. supports unbiased and objective climate science.”

Read the full DOE climate assessment at CFACT.org