Obama Warmed Over

The greatest danger we face from global warming is that politicians think they can do something about it.

On December 6, negotiations will begin in Copenhagen for a new agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The hope is these talks will produce commitments from each nation that, collectively, would keep temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. That will require deep cuts in emissions, as much as 80 percent among industrialized nations, by mid-century.

In his Sep. 22 speech to the UN’s Global Warming Summit, President Obama said:

“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it – boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

Reality check: Global temperatures have been steady or falling since 2000, and the lack of activity on the sun portends further cooling. Also civilizations flourished in previous warm cycles. Where is the empirical evidence that climate change is ” serious, urgent, and growing?”

See the “WryHeat” blogs:

Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t matter And Natural Climate Cycles

Obama: “Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.”

Reality check: Sea levels have been rising on and off since the end of the last glacial epoch13,000 years ago. The rate of sea level rise has not increased in recent decades over the nineteenth and twentieth century average. See: Sea Level Rising?

Obama: “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”

Reality Check: There is no upward global trend in storms or floods. Besides, increased storminess is associated with colder climates. Clarke, M.L. and Rendell, H.M. 2009. The impact of North Atlantic storminess on western European coasts: a review. Quaternary International 195: 31-41.

Obama: “More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

Reality Check: The geologic record and other proxies show that in North America, droughts equal or greater in magnitude to those of the Dust Bowl period were a common occurrence during the last 2000 years. Studies in other parts of the world show no evidence that warming increases the frequency or severity of droughts. (CO2Science.org database)

It seems that President Obama is long on flowery rhetoric and short on facts. And he seems to be ignoring the costs.

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report “The Economic Effects of Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions” shows just how weak the case for the proposed cap-and-trade plan really is. In fact, the CBO demonstrates that the theoretical benefits of Waxman-Markey to the United States fall far short of its costs. Also, the CBO report reveals that the costs borne by the U.S. may exceed the benefits to the entire world. The CBO estimates that even a pessimistic estimate of the danger posed by climate change is 3 percent of GDP, which won’t occur until 2100. At the same time, CBO estimates the hit to the U.S. economy from H.R. 2454 is in the range of 1.1 to 3.4 percent of GDP by the year 2050.

By the logic of the climate bill, we will be spending current dollars in the hope of saving future discounted dollars. The effect of carbon restrictions in the U.S. will be further discounted if other countries don’t go along with their own restrictions. See

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15010 for an analysis of the CBO report.

Of course, if Congress fails with Cap & Trade, the EPA is set to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant based on some fantasy data, mainly from the IPCC.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

Why are many politicians pushing for carbon control? Some may be doing it through ignorance or hope of political gain, but others realize the controlling carbon controls energy, the life-blood of industry. With government control of energy, governments will control the means of production, and that is the definition of socialism.

It is time to ask all our senators and representatives: “where is the evidence.” I’ve asked that question in letters to President Obama several times so far, but he must be too busy to respond, or maybe John Holdren is still looking for it.

Advertisements

30 comments

  1. Umm – you can’t blame “politicians” for taking the advice of scientists.
    Your quibble is not with the politicians it is with your fellow scientist with whom you disagree – convince them and the politicians will follow.

    1. But you can blame politicians for choosing a devout few scientists to help push an agenda that the politicians already have. Such is the case here in the U.S. and at the U.N.

      1. No you can’t – it is not a “conspiracy of politicians” to chose “devout few scientists”.
        The scientific consensus is overwhelming and the politicians are simply reacting to the best scientific advice.
        There are political dissenters, a few of whom are scientists, like the blog author who fail to make their case in peer reviewed literature and are trying to bypass science completely and make their case directly to politicians.
        They are the ones who “politicize” science, and are no different from the “scientists” who argue to politicians against evolution or any other topic where some group, for political reasons, doesn’t like what a sceintific consensus is telling us.

      2. Yes, tip, you can and all of your blustering to the contrary doesn’t change that. Do you know what the word ‘consensus’ means? Nothing more than a group opinion that requires no facts to back it, just like your man-made global warming.

      3. Well one “can”, but one would be in error.
        A scientific consensus is indeed the group consensus of the experts in a field but you can’t claim that it isn’t based upon facts, or science.
        Here we have the case of someone whose scientific opinion is considered in error by most in his field, and instead of publishing and trying to convince the experts he is appealing to politicians to ignore the experts.
         

  2. I sure hope that President Obama is too busy to respond to the likes of you. This article is despicable. You point readers toward your own previous writings in order to support your new points? That is laughable sir.
    If you’re looking for evidence, your not going to find it in the rhetoric of politicians. It might help to actually read the extensive reports done by scientists. See http://www.ucsusa.org for a comprehensive guide to climate change, and links to official reports done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other scientists and scientific organizations.
    Reality check: 99% of scientists agree that global climate change is occurring, and that it is anthropogenic.
    Reality Check: Carbon Dioxide levels are higher today than they have been over the past 650,000 years.
    I suggest you take a 101 level environmental biology course and see if any of your theories hold up.

    1. Dear Trevor,
      There are mighty few scientists in the Union of Concerned Scientists.  The IPCC has had 20 years and four major reports but have yet to publish any empirical evidence of anthropogenic warming  — but they are big on speculative computer models based on unwarranted assumptions.  Here’s another of my essays:
      http://tinyurl.com/nfyo9n
      I agree that warming is occurring, but there is no evidence of human cause.  Even if 99% of scientists say so (they don’t) doesn’t make it so.
      Also look here: http://www.petitionproject.org/
      to see that more than 30,000 scientists disagree with you and provide the evidence for their position.
       
       
       

  3. “With government control of energy, governments will control the means of production, and that is the definition of socialism.”

    You have the strict definition of socialism correct, but I see no reason to believe that the government intends to socialize energy production and/or use (though it would be a good idea).  I think you’re trying to equate any limitations on corporate freedom to act as they please, beholden to nothing but the bottom line, with socialism. 

    Jonathan, I also believe your political beliefs are shaping your scientific opinion, ala Bush and cronies.  I also believe you place the profits of extractive industries above the welfare of the planet and its people.

    1. It’s too bad that this issue has become so politicized.   By the way I’m a registered independent.

      1. Well, I guess I am an independent then too, as I belong to no particular party espousing a socialist program.  But just like me, the sum total of your position statements over time is indicative of a certain political philosophy.  

        BTW – not to make too fine a point, but a dictionary definition of socialism should use the phrase “public control of the means of production”, as opposed to “government control…”.  Ideally, of course, the two should be the same, though in practice, they usually are not. 

  4. Jonathan: Your sources are suspect and generally obscure.  Of course, you are doing the same thing I would do if I were a defender of my own point of view; i.e., citing sources which back your claims.  But, like it or not, the consensus in the scientific community is caused by the majority of the facts pointing to evidence for AGW and its increase. The petition you referred to has been widely discredited as containing the names of veterinarians, oil company shills, and weathermen, and not a substantial number of climatologists or any other scientists with an extensive knowledge of climate and climate history. Ten years does not a trend make but deniers will use it when they can, if they think it proves their point.  But I keep hearing from them that the earth has been cooling for the past ten years.  It has not.  What has happened is that the pace of warming has slowed.  We have been in a warming lull in the past decade, not a cooling period, and world average temperatures are still higher than in the previous 150 years.  In the decade of 1998-2008, the Arctic was warmer than it has been in 2000 years.  And the latest word is that sunspot activity may account for only 1% of changes in climate. Yes, temperatures have been rising and falling all these millennia, long before people started using fossil fuels to heat and cool on the scale that they do now, pouring millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere.  Sea level has been rising and falling for millennia, but that really didn’t matter much before New Orleans, New York, Miami, and Galveston came into being.  Droughts have come and gone and they never mattered much either before the founding of Wichita, Los Angeles, and Flagstaff.  Now it matters.  And I doubt you can find any instance in history where these changes occurred over the span of two or three hundred years. You are absolutely right that whomever is controlling carbon controls energy, and therein lies our current problem.  Industry and politics control the carbon, and what the Goliaths fear is thousands of new Davids making and controlling their own energy, to the exclusion of the giants. Conversely, to paraphrase your statement, with foreign governments controlling our energy supply, foreign governments will control our methods and means of production, and our politics, and that is the definition of vulnerability, if not colonialism.As for your asking “where is the evidence?”; if you have eyes, then see. The global warming theory was formulated from gathered evidence. The evidence, accepted by most of the world’s academies of science, most civilized governments, most of the world’s scientists, and the military leaders of the United States, Russia, and Canada, suggests that man-made global climate change is occurring.  If this is a conspiracy, it is the most widespread in history. If you don’t like the scientific evidence though, you can just look at what people and governments are doing.  Russia is suing to establish the limits of its continental shelf so as to have access to oil lying beneath the Arctic Ocean (UN).  Two German freighters recently sailed the Northeast passage for the first time in history, cutting 3500 miles off the usual route, thanks to thinning ice.  The United States is planning to open a new Coast Guard base on the northern coast of Alaska to facilitate more patrols in case any of the increasing numbers of fishing vessels and cruise ships get into trouble.  (USCG)  Royal Dutch Shell has spent $2.1 billion for leases in preparation for exploratory drilling off the northern coast of Alaska. (NY Times)  Alaskan coastal villages, once protected by ice shelves, are collapsing into the sea from tides that have never touched the land before. (geology.com) Canadian botanists and biologists are seeing southern species of plants and animals in the north that have never been seen before. (Nature) Greenland’s citizens are planting potatoes, carrots, and broccoli for the first time and grazing more sheep than they ever have in the past, as well as selling leases to oil companies eager to drill on the warming subcontinent. (The Independent) All of these groups don’t believe man-made global warming is a hoax. 

    1. lengthy response. i think the temp went up 1 degree while reading it.

      my simple and well renowned response ……….. global warming is nothing more than global crap.

      isn’t this the same group of “scientists” that supported the earth as being flat?

    2. Paragraphs are your friend. There is no need to be afraid of your friend. Also, giant blobs of text are seldom read by anyone, so any point you may have made will be completely ignored. I have a feeling, though, that your ‘point’ is that anyone who disagrees with your view is wrong, just as all in the Church of Gore believe.

    3. To gcaveman1:
      My obscure sources are the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Consensus isn’t science; it’s politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
       
      You challenged: “I doubt you can find any instance in history where these changes occurred over the span of two or three hundred years. ”
      Here’s one:
      There was a ‘Mediaeval Megadrought’ that occurred from AD 900 to AD 1300, along with an abrupt shift to wetter conditions after AD 1300, coinciding with the ‘Little Ice Age’, a time of globally cooler temperatures” that ultimately gave way to a return to more drought-prone conditions beginning in the nineteenth century.
      Source: Herweijer, C., Seager, R. and Cook, E.R. 2006. North American droughts of the mid to late nineteenth century: a history, simulation and implication for Mediaeval drought. The Holocene 16: 159-171.

      As for evidence, you say “global warming theory was formulated from gathered evidence.” That is not true; global warming theory was formulated from computer models. The IPCC has had 20 years and published four major reports, but have yet to publish any empirical evidence supporting their contention that human carbon dioxide emissions contribute significantly to global warming.

  5. “global warming is nothing more than global crap.”

    And you are the acknowledged expert on manure, mopckoe; of both the literal and metaphoric varieties. 

    1. “acknowledged expert on manure” in a sense, after all, i shovel obama policy everyday. then, following his lead, i spread it around and then do as we all should ……… i plow it under and from it’s decay, comes real growth.

  6. Don’t get me wrong i do believe in the global warming thing. My question is that how come we never hear about the waters rising in NY, california, florida, mexico, Cuba? Or am i not reading the right articles?

    Just wondering.
    thanks!

  7. You’ve bee mowing too many lawns with a fossil-fueled mower and belching way too much carbon dioxide. The science speaks for itself. The president is correct. Get in line now.

    1. i will side step the line cause it’s a line of fools. those in the line, get your wallets out casue as always, the fools supposed way out is going to cost you.

  8. Even is “global warming” isn’t correct, doesn’t it make sense for us to stop polluting and abusing our Mother Earth?

    1. Reducing pollution is a good thing. I am all for reducing things like ground-level ozone and latex particles in the air, arsenic, lead and mercury in ground water and the various poisons left in the ground from the manufacturing done in the first 75 years of the 20th century.
       
      Targeting carbon because of poor research, a general lack of understanding of what makes climate work and cherry-picked data produced by researchers is not high on my list of things that need to be done.

  9. You want to reduce atmospheric carbon? Get Brazil and its neighbors to stop clear-cutting the Amazonian rain forest and start replanting. Stop using corn to produce ethanol, as that requires more energy than it returns. Increase grants on battery research so that electricity generated by wind and solar farms can be stored and used more efficiently. Increase funding for hydrogen cell research so we can ditch fossil-fuel burning engines.
     
    There are many things that could be done, I’ve listed just a few, but no one in the Obama administration or at the U.N. is advocating doing them. Why is that?

  10. I do not believe that climate change is caused by man.
    The World’s climate has changed since the begining of time and will continue to do so.
    I remember, during and before WWII we, in Britain, had warmer Summers and colder Winters (with more snow, too), than of recent years.
    What the claim that man is causing climate change achieves, is to make money for those who already have too much, by the manufacture of turbines and the erection of hideous wind farms which deface our landscape.
    ONE BIG CONFIDENCE TRICK!

  11. Jonathan correctly states that no empirical (observable) evidence (other than computer modeling) has yet been given in support of anthropogenic warming.  And no one refuted this.    The scientific method requires observable, measurable and repeatable phenomena.  The problem with GW  speculators is they base their case on a simplistic, speculative model that can not be repeated in the real world.  True, the climate may be changing, but so what? Climate change is normal and has occurred repeatably since way before man was factored in.  Climate change is naturally-caused, plain and simple.

    The reason politicians are so high on GW is because it instills all kinds of fear in the general public, is easily sold (with junk science)  and wins elections ( vote for me, and I will save you from impending disaster).  When someone says they will save you, that means they want to rule (and tax) you. 

    I get tired of hearing this talking point about some kind of scientific consensus of man-caused GW.  Consensus, or group thought, has no place in the changing, disciplined setting of science.  Consensus is the business of politics, and politics is really what this “debate” is all about.

Comments are closed.