Tired of being categorized as "red" or "blue"? Join AmericaSpeakon.org to share your ideas. Become a leader. Speak Up. Speak Out. America, SpeakOn!
Chris Jeter
Mark Salter
Tom Sullivan
Jean H. Card
John C. Kalitka
Robin King
Kimberly Wilcox
Raynard Jackson
Charles M. Rousseaux
Matt Crow
Bradley A. Blakeman
Ken Nahigian
Secretary Michael O. Leavitt
Deputy Secretary Tevi D. Troy
Laura E Niklason MD, PhD
Michael R. Shannon
Robert Sambursky, MD
Robbie Cohen
Orson Swindle
The Philadelphians
Ann Dolin, M.Ed.
Elizabeth Letchworth
Sam McGraw
Catherine McCullough
Patrick Murray
Ray Hartwell
5/12/2009
Why True Climate Legislation Cannot Happen
by Ken Nahigian
The U.S. is in a major recession with unemployment just shy of nine percent. Businesses are struggling and consumers are flocking in droves to purchase clearance items from retail shelves. So what is the most logical thing Congress can do to help this situation? That’s right – kick Americans while we are down by slapping yet another massive tax on businesses for their emission of carbon. And given that corporations are not in the business of paying taxes these revenues indubitably will be passed along and extracted from consumers, the same consumers who find themselves increasingly without jobs. Timing and brilliance are not the strong suits of these legislative entrepreneurs, but I digress.
Climate change is abstract and even more so during an economic downturn, while constituents are real. Congress may choose to pursue this legislation early in the new Administration’s term acting with a false sense of mandate by the electorate to do so, but it is exactly the wrong time to do it and its members know it. Not only is the issue not ripe as scientists find themselves exactly split on evidence demonstrating the level of manmade causation (if any) of global warming, but the economy cannot continue to absorb burdensome regulation the consequence of which is to further cripple business. Bottom line, constituents write letters and jam Capitol phone lines and melting glaciers do not. Until Mother Nature picks up a phone or puts a pen to paper this legislation is dead on arrival. To pass climate change legislation, Congress would need to figure a way to do it without adversely affecting their constituents or the votes simply will not be there for passage.
Second, the climate change notion is illogical, unnecessary, and upside down. The true way to achieve climate change is not through senseless and ineffective taxation that will saddle consumers, but rather via incentives for advanced technologies in the transportation sector, an expansion of renewable power generation throughout the United States, the modernization of the Nation’s electrical grid, and a commitment to clean nuclear power. Congress continues to refuse a comprehensive strategy for clean energy production and therefore will fail to achieve true emissions-reduction legislation as a result.
Climate change is real, there is no doubt and to argue otherwise is foolish. What is debatable, however, is the degree (if any) to which man is causing the change. I would argue that the truth of this debate is irrelevant if Congress focuses on policies that create jobs and reduce reliance on foreign sources of oil. By doing so, the Nation will reduce emissions dramatically without burdening consumers with yet another tax.
In order to help us prevent SPAM or automated postings, please type the two words you see in the box above to verify your posting.
Your Name:
Your E-Mail:
Your Comment:
dennis Bussey
Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 - 10:34am
Wouldn’t it be prudent to rethink this whole thing before we begin implementing federal policies designed to reduce the temperature of the earth? For those who suggest all the science and practical aspects have long ago been resolved, I encourage your attention to the following. It seems self evident that these four criteria need to be true before initiating government policies designed to change the temperature of the earth by decreasing carbon emissions: 1. The earth’s temperature in increasing because of CO2 emissions. 2. Man’s actions in emitting CO2 are causing the increase. 3. The degree of temperature increase will lead to alarming problems. 4. Man can reasonably correct the problem by reducing emissions of CO2. I suggest that science and logic do not support policies of reducing CO2 for the purpose of reducing the earth’s temperature. This is a real problem that is impacting our lives, and the problem will become much bigger if our country implements similar policies and further if we join other countries in Kyoto-like treaties. I’m open that perhaps I am wrong about all of this. If I am wrong however, persuasive authoritative answers to my ten questions should be available along with the supporting science and logic. As an elected official you owe it to the citizenry to have clear answers to all these questions before supporting positions designed to reduce CO2 for the purpose of reducing the temperature of the earth. Let’s walk through them. Question #1 By what degree Fahrenheit will the earth’s temperature be reduced resulting from the achievement in reducing greenhouse gasses attributed to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, and in what year will this result be realized? Question #2 The same question as above, except when the Kyoto Protocol was initiated, by what degree Fahrenheit was the earth’s temperature expected to be reduced, and in what year was that result projected to be realized? Compare the results of answers #1 and #2 above. The combination of #’s 1 and 2 is intended to demonstrate the futility of attempting to decrease the earth’s temperature by reducing CO2. The Kyoto Protocol is a serious attempt to do just that, and it makes sense to evaluate this 10+ year history for what it may portend for future similar plans. You will find that the answer to these questions is something like “An amount so small as to be immeasurable and insignificant.” In other words, it appears that the premise of reducing CO2 makes no sense. How can one argue that actions producing results that are immeasurable and insignificant are worthwhile and this even if by projecting their theoretical results 100 years into the future? The only result from Kyoto or similar plans that matters is by what degree will it decrease the temperature of the earth. After all, its purpose is to stop global warming. Reducing CO2 is a theoretical means to reach that goal. Even if one chooses to be oblivious to the important part, i.e. Kyoto’s failure to even theoretically reasonably influence the earth’s temperature, it’s instructive to review their results in meeting emission targets. You will find that in spite of genuine attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, their results were disappointing. This further contributes to the futility of attempting to decrease the earth’s temperature by reducing CO2. Finally, these results are not encouraging for the potential success of future plans via new treaties, etc for even larger CO2 reductions than those in Kyoto. It is important to note that Kyoto, the EPA, our federal government’s leaders in energy policy and the state of California and other likeminded states are aligned in the nature of their concern about CO2. They all consider it a problem because they theorize it is causing global warming. Is no case are they motivated to control CO2 as an air pollutant in the traditional sense. The health issue they envision is warming of the earth, not lung diseases. Question #3 Which countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol failed to achieve their greenhouse gas reduction goals, why did they come up short, and what could/should they have done to meet the targets? What negative impacts, if any, has this had on the participating countries? Question #4 is intended to expose that while it’s easy to proclaim future CO2 reductions, the doing part is a whole other issue. As they say, “It’s more easily said than done.” As a practical matter, how is it reasonable to expect those countries who tried so hard to meet Kyoto emission targets during the last 10 years will do better the next time presumably with emission targets that are much more stringent? Idealism feels good, but isn’t it also essential to be realistic? A sub part of #4 is intended to explore what negative impacts Kyoto adherents may have experienced. Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid provides an answer with this study: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf (I cut/pasted in some highlights) “Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.” “Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job.” “No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.” “’¦ the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession. “ “Green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made." Nevertheless, it appears our current administration is determined to follow Spain’s lead. President Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy. Either the information I presented is invalid, or President Obama’s plan is ill-conceived. I see no way around this conclusion. Question #4 Does the available science truly justify the authoritative conclusion that manmade CO2 is responsible for global warming? Can we really be so confident that natural factors, for example the sun, are not chiefly responsible? Question #4 is another way of asking, “Who are we to believe on the science of global warming?” I have often heard that there is a consensus of scientists on the manmade side and dissenters are to be discounted due to their ulterior, even corrupt, motive. I recognize question #4 could sink into a bottomless pit of point/counterpoint that could leave even the clearest minds spinning in confusion. I am nevertheless concerned that the science has become politicized, and as a result the so called dissenters have not been given their warranted due. In responding to my question #4, I invite you to consider these three points: 1. Author Lawrence Solomon set out to see if any “real” scientists dissent from the man is responsible theory of global warming. Solomon discovered that on every “headline” global warming issue, not only were there serious scientists who dissented, consistently the dissenters were far more accomplished and eminent scientists. His findings are chronicled in his book The Deniers. 2. Consider this article of April 8, 2009 titled “It’s the Sun, Stupid!” by Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. http://www.acuf.org/issues/issue129/090404cul.asp. I have no doubt that other scientists can produce studies that would disagree with Dr. Soon’s theory on the influence of the sun on global warming. My point here is that Dr. Soon would tell you that his voice is given minimal regard compared to the megaphone type attention given to those with theories supporting manmade global warming. I believe the same imbalance applies to all the scientific voices dissenting from the manmade global warming theory. 3. I suggest the often stated “consensus of scientists” argument is so seriously flawed it does not deserve to be taken seriously. Refer to the comments in this presentation where that case is made. http://www.slideshare.net/DennisBussey/global-warming-presentation/ Question #5 Computer models, upon which the theory of manmade global warming depend, predict that the air 10 kilometers above the tropics at the equator would be a “hot spot” which would reflect a “manmade green house signature.” The empirical data, demonstrate however that the “hot spot” is missing. Explain this and provide the scientific evidence that manmade greenhouse gasses are causing global warming. Question #5 goes to the heart of my second criteria from the onset, i.e. man’s actions in emitting CO2 are causing the temperature increase. There is no empirical information in any scientific study that demonstrates man is causing global warming. There are theories but no facts to support this. An obvious place to consider is the air 10 kilometers above the tropics at the equator. Those supporting the theory of manmade global warming need a sound scientific answer to this. Find it if you can, but I don’t believe science has demonstrated a “manmade greenhouse signature.” Wouldn’t you agree we need something more than a theory, something like empirical evidence about all this? Question #6 The theory of manmade global warming requires that temperature rise is driven by the rise of CO2. Ice cores however, reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after temperature. Explain this apparent contradiction. Similarly, question #6 challenges the validity of the manmade GW theory which supposes CO2 leads temperature increases while science demonstrates the reverse is case. There are lots more parts of the CO2 contribution that also are not clear, but this one is so fundamental, it begs for a straightforward resolution. Question #7 Given the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere during the periods, the computer models mentioned in question #5 would have predicted the temperature to rise during the 1940’s to the 1970’s and then again from about 2001 to the present. During both periods the computer models would not have/did not accurately predict what actually happened. Since we know the computer models are wrong during our lifetimes, how can we be confident they will be accurate 50 and 100 years in the future? Question #7, speaks again to the validity of climate models. Where is the wisdom in justifying highly disruptive worldwide actions based on models we know are wrong? It seems reasonable that before using them to justify public policy, we demand climate models produce predictions that reasonably match empirical data. At this point, they are not even close. If the local weatherman or weather.com consistently predict it’s going to rain tomorrow, and it doesn’t rain for ten years, we’ll be wise to stop carrying umbrellas. It seems reasonable to begin taking climate models seriously only when they demonstrate they can reasonably accurately take into account, for example, whatever climate factors have resulted in the earth not warming for the last decade. Question #8 What makes us so confident that even if warming were to occur, that catastrophe would ensure? You will find that a fair minded review of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict catastrophe. This appears to be an example, like in question #4, that an inordinate amount of attention has been paid to one side of the argument and the public has therefore has lost a sensible perspective. Question #9 What about plans already employed by our government motivated in part to stop global warming that have done more harm than good? Example: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Question #10 Even if manmade global warming were a problem, wouldn’t it be more sensible to adapt to the new temperature rather than launch into a “mission impossible” scheme to change the temperature of the earth? Wouldn’t adaptation as (and if) necessary be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful? In summary, it appears to me that government policy designed to reduce CO2 for the purpose of reducing the earth’s temperature is illogical and lacks scientific justification and further, it is economically foolish. Dennis Bussey
dennis bussey
Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 - 10:32am
Wouldn’t it be prudent to rethink this whole thing before we begin implementing federal policies designed to reduce the temperature of the earth? For those who suggest all the science and practical aspects have long ago been resolved, I encourage your attention to the following. It seems self evident that these four criteria need to be true before initiating government policies designed to change the temperature of the earth by decreasing carbon emissions: 1. The earth’s temperature in increasing because of CO2 emissions. 2. Man’s actions in emitting CO2 are causing the increase. 3. The degree of temperature increase will lead to alarming problems. 4. Man can reasonably correct the problem by reducing emissions of CO2. I suggest that science and logic do not support policies of reducing CO2 for the purpose of reducing the earth’s temperature. This is a real problem that is impacting our lives, and the problem will become much bigger if our country implements similar policies and further if we join other countries in Kyoto-like treaties. I’m open that perhaps I am wrong about all of this. If I am wrong however, persuasive authoritative answers to my ten questions should be available along with the supporting science and logic. As an elected official you owe it to the citizenry to have clear answers to all these questions before supporting positions designed to reduce CO2 for the purpose of reducing the temperature of the earth. Let’s walk through them. Question #1 By what degree Fahrenheit will the earth’s temperature be reduced resulting from the achievement in reducing greenhouse gasses attributed to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, and in what year will this result be realized? Question #2 The same question as above, except when the Kyoto Protocol was initiated, by what degree Fahrenheit was the earth’s temperature expected to be reduced, and in what year was that result projected to be realized? Compare the results of answers #1 and #2 above. The combination of #’s 1 and 2 is intended to demonstrate the futility of attempting to decrease the earth’s temperature by reducing CO2. The Kyoto Protocol is a serious attempt to do just that, and it makes sense to evaluate this 10+ year history for what it may portend for future similar plans. You will find that the answer to these questions is something like “An amount so small as to be immeasurable and insignificant.” In other words, it appears that the premise of reducing CO2 makes no sense. How can one argue that actions producing results that are immeasurable and insignificant are worthwhile and this even if by projecting their theoretical results 100 years into the future? The only result from Kyoto or similar plans that matters is by what degree will it decrease the temperature of the earth. After all, its purpose is to stop global warming. Reducing CO2 is a theoretical means to reach that goal. Even if one chooses to be oblivious to the important part, i.e. Kyoto’s failure to even theoretically reasonably influence the earth’s temperature, it’s instructive to review their results in meeting emission targets. You will find that in spite of genuine attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, their results were disappointing. This further contributes to the futility of attempting to decrease the earth’s temperature by reducing CO2. Finally, these results are not encouraging for the potential success of future plans via new treaties, etc for even larger CO2 reductions than those in Kyoto. It is important to note that Kyoto, the EPA, our federal government’s leaders in energy policy and the state of California and other likeminded states are aligned in the nature of their concern about CO2. They all consider it a problem because they theorize it is causing global warming. Is no case are they motivated to control CO2 as an air pollutant in the traditional sense. The health issue they envision is warming of the earth, not lung diseases. Question #3 Which countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol failed to achieve their greenhouse gas reduction goals, why did they come up short, and what could/should they have done to meet the targets? What negative impacts, if any, has this had on the participating countries? Question #4 is intended to expose that while it’s easy to proclaim future CO2 reductions, the doing part is a whole other issue. As they say, “It’s more easily said than done.” As a practical matter, how is it reasonable to expect those countries who tried so hard to meet Kyoto emission targets during the last 10 years will do better the next time presumably with emission targets that are much more stringent? Idealism feels good, but isn’t it also essential to be realistic? A sub part of #4 is intended to explore what negative impacts Kyoto adherents may have experienced. Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid provides an answer with this study: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf (I cut/pasted in some highlights) “Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.” “Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job.” “No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.” “’¦ the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession. “ “Green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made." Nevertheless, it appears our current administration is determined to follow Spain’s lead. President Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy. Either the information I presented is invalid, or President Obama’s plan is ill-conceived. I see no way around this conclusion. Question #4 Does the available science truly justify the authoritative conclusion that manmade CO2 is responsible for global warming? Can we really be so confident that natural factors, for example the sun, are not chiefly responsible? Question #4 is another way of asking, “Who are we to believe on the science of global warming?” I have often heard that there is a consensus of scientists on the manmade side and dissenters are to be discounted due to their ulterior, even corrupt, motive. I recognize question #4 could sink into a bottomless pit of point/counterpoint that could leave even the clearest minds spinning in confusion. I am nevertheless concerned that the science has become politicized, and as a result the so called dissenters have not been given their warranted due. In responding to my question #4, I invite you to consider these three points: 1. Author Lawrence Solomon set out to see if any “real” scientists dissent from the man is responsible theory of global warming. Solomon discovered that on every “headline” global warming issue, not only were there serious scientists who dissented, consistently the dissenters were far more accomplished and eminent scientists. His findings are chronicled in his book The Deniers. 2. Consider this article of April 8, 2009 titled “It’s the Sun, Stupid!” by Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. http://www.acuf.org/issues/issue129/090404cul.asp. I have no doubt that other scientists can produce studies that would disagree with Dr. Soon’s theory on the influence of the sun on global warming. My point here is that Dr. Soon would tell you that his voice is given minimal regard compared to the megaphone type attention given to those with theories supporting manmade global warming. I believe the same imbalance applies to all the scientific voices dissenting from the manmade global warming theory. 3. I suggest the often stated “consensus of scientists” argument is so seriously flawed it does not deserve to be taken seriously. Refer to the comments in this presentation where that case is made. http://www.slideshare.net/DennisBussey/global-warming-presentation/ Question #5 Computer models, upon which the theory of manmade global warming depend, predict that the air 10 kilometers above the tropics at the equator would be a “hot spot” which would reflect a “manmade green house signature.” The empirical data, demonstrate however that the “hot spot” is missing. Explain this and provide the scientific evidence that manmade greenhouse gasses are causing global warming. Question #5 goes to the heart of my second criteria from the onset, i.e. man’s actions in emitting CO2 are causing the temperature increase. There is no empirical information in any scientific study that demonstrates man is causing global warming. There are theories but no facts to support this. An obvious place to consider is the air 10 kilometers above the tropics at the equator. Those supporting the theory of manmade global warming need a sound scientific answer to this. Find it if you can, but I don’t believe science has demonstrated a “manmade greenhouse signature.” Wouldn’t you agree we need something more than a theory, something like empirical evidence about all this? Question #6 The theory of manmade global warming requires that temperature rise is driven by the rise of CO2. Ice cores however, reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after temperature. Explain this apparent contradiction. Similarly, question #6 challenges the validity of the manmade GW theory which supposes CO2 leads temperature increases while science demonstrates the reverse is case. There are lots more parts of the CO2 contribution that also are not clear, but this one is so fundamental, it begs for a straightforward resolution. Question #7 Given the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere during the periods, the computer models mentioned in question #5 would have predicted the temperature to rise during the 1940’s to the 1970’s and then again from about 2001 to the present. During both periods the computer models would not have/did not accurately predict what actually happened. Since we know the computer models are wrong during our lifetimes, how can we be confident they will be accurate 50 and 100 years in the future? Question #7, speaks again to the validity of climate models. Where is the wisdom in justifying highly disruptive worldwide actions based on models we know are wrong? It seems reasonable that before using them to justify public policy, we demand climate models produce predictions that reasonably match empirical data. At this point, they are not even close. If the local weatherman or weather.com consistently predict it’s going to rain tomorrow, and it doesn’t rain for ten years, we’ll be wise to stop carrying umbrellas. It seems reasonable to begin taking climate models seriously only when they demonstrate they can reasonably accurately take into account, for example, whatever climate factors have resulted in the earth not warming for the last decade. Question #8 What makes us so confident that even if warming were to occur, that catastrophe would ensure? You will find that a fair minded review of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict catastrophe. This appears to be an example, like in question #4, that an inordinate amount of attention has been paid to one side of the argument and the public has therefore has lost a sensible perspective. Question #9 What about plans already employed by our government motivated in part to stop global warming that have done more harm than good? Example: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Question #10 Even if manmade global warming were a problem, wouldn’t it be more sensible to adapt to the new temperature rather than launch into a “mission impossible” scheme to change the temperature of the earth? Wouldn’t adaptation as (and if) necessary be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful? In summary, it appears to me that government policy designed to reduce CO2 for the purpose of reducing the earth’s temperature is illogical and lacks scientific justification and further, it is economically foolish. Dennis Bussey
Steve
Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 - 9:46am
Ken's argument about shifting the focus away from "climate change" and to "energy independence" is exactly right. The only certainty about the science behind climate change is that there is no certainty. Even the best climate models in use today are unable to use historic data to "predict" subsequent previously-recorded climate changes (e.g. using data from the 50's to predict climate change for the 60's or 70's). Current measures of warming are contradictory: even as a portion of the Antarctic ice cap is breaking off, Australian scientists have documented expansion of the ice cap on the opposite side of Antarctica that is 4 times greater than the ice to be lost. Yet we can all agree, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, that the transfer of tremendous amouts of wealth from the US to foreign, often repressive regimes, is contrary to both our national interests and to the well-being of human society around the globe. Incentives to develop new, clean energy technologies can spur the economy provided we do not prohibit development through excessive regulation. Also, it is important that these technologies be cost-competitive in today's marketplace if we expect cash-strapped consumers to adopt these technologies. Massive federal subsidies of new energy technology are unsustainable. Seed money makes sense but the technologies developed must ultimately stand on their own.
3
Be a part of our Social Networks
