That article is nothing but headline click bait. First, the scientist (Dr. Zharkova) studies the Sun, not their planetary effects. She just say’s that solar output will reduce to levels experienced during the last ice age, NOTHING about how it will affect our planet. What do all the deniers say? “We’re heading towards an ice age!”
And yesterday, I emailed Dr. Zharkova and got a response.
Straight from the scientist in that article.
So she admits global warming is a phenomenon. . . the very scientist you guys are mis-representing as stating we’re headed for another ice age.
Are you accusing me of misrepresenting someone by posting a link from a website? That is absurd. I posted a link to an article telling me we are headed into a mini-ice age. If the article misrepresented the good doctor then take your argument to them.
It couldn’t be that President Barack Obama and Al Gore are wrong? So climate change isn’t a bigger threat than ISIS, as Obama says?
Actually, Arctic ice has grown dramatically, and Antarctica’s cap has hit a record high–despite years of gloom-and-doom predictions of melting and flooding due to alleged global warming/climate change.
The polar cap increased by more than 40 percent in 2013 because of cooler-than-expected temperatures, according to IOL SciTech.
The findings by experts at University College London suggest the polar cap is more resilient than first thought and is able to quickly bounce back. Despite several warm summers there is still about a third more ice in the region than there was five years ago.
Scientists said they were shocked at the speed of recovery in such a short time.
The resurgence shows how much care needs to be taken when assessing claims about climate. For years an industry has grown up around global warming – based on pressimistic forecasts from scientists and politicians that the ice caps would have disappeared by now.
A major report last year by the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change gave a grim assessment, saying Arctic sea ice had decreased since 1979 at a rate of 3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade.
Three years ago Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University forecasted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2015 – or 2016 at the latest. The US Navy predicted last year that melting sea ice would mean the Arctic would be navigable during summer months by 2030 for the first time. And strong claims that the caps would disappear by 2014 have been made by US politician Al Gore and vice president John Kerry. Those assessments now seem unlikely on current findings.
And at the other end of the planet, Nasa reported that sea ice at the Antarctic was at its greatest extent since records began in 1979.
The UCL researchers found that Arctic ice had melted by 14 percent between 2010 and 2012. But it then increased in volume by 41 percent two years ago when the Arctic summer had some of the coolest temperatures since the late 1990s
Last autumn, the ice only melted by six percent, meaning it is still considerably thicker than in 2010.
Overall there were five percent fewer days when the temperature was consistently above freezing in 2013 than in 2012 – causing the remarkable expansion.
Study leader Rachel Tilling admitted: “We were quite surprised by the findings.” She added: “Although models have suggested that the volume of Arctic sea ice is in long term decline, we know now that it can recover by a significant amount if the melting season is cut short.”
For the uninitiated, global warming/climate change scare tactics aren’t about science. They’re about socialist control of people.
I'm constantly amazed out how much information the deniers can find from the 3% of scientists who are either unsure or believe that global warming or climate change is not being influenced by our burning of fossil fuels. I'm an odds kind of guy so I put more weight on the 97% who are very concerned. For me it's not a question of what's happening, it's a question of what do we do about it. Now that is a discussion that is worth having and might produce something worth while. There are different things that can be done. Which ones are most helpful and least harmful? Those are the answers that I would like to hear.
... it's a question of what do we do about it. Now that is a discussion that is worth having and might produce something worth while. There are different things that can be done. Which ones are most helpful and least harmful? Those are the answers that I would like to hear.
According to Al Gore/Suzuki/Obama - stop using all your gas vehicles (car, truck, snowmobile, lawnmower etc) and heating your house with natural gas. Buy a non-hybrid electric car (uses NO gas), put solar panels on your roof for electricity/heating and switch to fluorescent lighting. Don't fly anywhere. Take vacations driving your electric car.
According to Al Gore/Suzuki/Obama - stop using all your gas vehicles (car, truck, snowmobile, lawnmower etc) and heating your house with natural gas. Buy a non-hybrid electric car (uses NO gas), put solar panels on your roof for electricity/heating and switch to fluorescent lighting. Don't fly anywhere. Take vacations driving your electric car.
.
All goals that I aspire to. Maybe not the lawnmower. I have an acre and a grass fire is an issue. Maybe there is an electric lawnmower that will work. It looks like led lighting is becoming cheaper and it has been more efficient than fluorescent for a while. The house heating will be a passive solar design built on a tracking platform. I've had my eye on a Tesla roadster since they came out. I don't fly anymore
The liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.
They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”
Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform, more policy, more money to combat climate change. But how much has the world really warmed?
Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.
But how much has the world really warmed?
It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).
To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives.
But that's just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.
According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.
That's three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.
So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?
Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.
According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!
As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.
Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.
This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.
In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”
Al Gore could not have been more wrong.
However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.
For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.
The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”
Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start.
A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .
Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused warming. Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).
It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler.
Which makes one wonder — why are we still spending $22 billion a year on global warming initiatives, and where is the money going?
I'm really not lowering my standards too much, when you compare my sources to the global alarmists sources.
I don't know how long you have lived in Orlando but I have lived in the area since 1955 and I can tell you that without question we have a lot more very hot summer days now than we did in the 50's and 60's. Whether the cause is man made or not I don't know for sure.
One could say the same for you. There is no conclusive proof that either side is right, but one thing is for certain, some people are making a mint off of this. Follow the money and wonder.
the guy who got robbed by the GOP in fla in 2000 ?
the robber who then started two wars but paid for none and his nut-cons then trashed the economy while mumbling about fiscal responsibility but failing to show any just voodoo and then tryed to blame the ghetto's for the acts the nut-con's did when the voodoo blew up
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
"and follow the money is your only good idea do you ever actually do that ???"
Ever hear of this fella named Al Gore?
Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill..." - The First Global Revolution (page 115), Club of Rome, an elite think-tank (David Rockefeller, Gorbachev, etc.) working with the UN.
Stanford University Professor Steven Schneider (Nobel Prize winner along with Al Gore): "...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." "Our Fragile Earth," Discover (October 1989 - page 44)
Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - “Global Warming: The Real Agenda,” Financial Post, 26 December 1998 (page 4)
It's amazing how rich these non-profit GW organizations have become by falling in line...
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 08-01-2015).]
This, I believe, is the full quotation of that paragraph from the Club of Rome "The First Global Revolution":
The common enemy of humanity is Man
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions, these phenomena do constitute a common threat, which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about: namely, mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-01-2015).]
What Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider actually said, before it was selectively edited and recirculated in various blogs and media venues:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
What Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider actually said, before it was selectively edited and recirculated in various blogs and media venues:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Paragraph quotations from Professor Schneider... 1989, The Club of Rome... 1991, Christine Stewart... 1998
Amazing, how "they" have been able to keep the "media behind them" for the last TWENTY or more years.
Meanwhile, in the current (21st) century, NOAA is reporting that 2014 was the warmest year in at least the last quarter of a century, on a planet-wide basis: http://www.noaanews.noaa.go...-year-on-record.html
Off-the-charts heat is "getting to be a monthly thing," said Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. June was the fourth month of 2015 that set a record, she said.
"There is almost no way that 2015 isn't going to be the warmest on record," she added.
It's the same as when the Police get their suspect and ignore all evidence that doesn't support their supposition of his guilt. It is easy to convict an innocent man when only circumstantial or manufactured evidence against him is presented.
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 08-02-2015).]
Errors and general fallacies in Mr. Moores statements:
1.) Things change by themselves so therefore, climate change is due to this natural change. a. Red herring. The entire point of AGW is because this time in history, humans are influencing climate. His argument is along the lines of “species have gone extinct by themselves. . .therefore the extinction of the white rhino is entirely because of nature.” 2.) Climate is just too dag on complicated. . . therefore we can’t understand it. a. This is the entire point of studying the climate, to better understand it. If your answer is “Oh, we’re too ignorant.” Then the entire argument that humans can’t or aren’t influencing climate is invalid. If we can’t understand the climate, then you can’t decisively say humans aren’t having an influence. You can’t say you don’t know about it but make the statement saying you already know. 3.) The periods he mentions when humans were around and we don’t know what caused them. . . a. First, we do know what influence the temperatures, notably solar output and volcanic activity. Again, making false connection that somehow because humans were around during then, the current observations which are occurring when our population is much higher and we have an industrial society, are the exact same. Second, while there were parts of the globe that were warmer, the overall temperature during the medieval period then was still less than it is today. 4.) We are in one of those periods right now. . . a. Failing at even the basic facts. The Pleistocene ice age ended almost 12k years ago. 5.) Temps and Co2 levels do not show a strong correlation. a. Flat out false. Historically, CO2 has lagged global temperatures. His statement that they don’t show a correlation is a complete false statement. Convenient that his graph(s) don’t have any sort of labels on them. If I did that even in high school, I’d get an F. 6.) We do know there are other factors, such as the shape and size of the elliptical orbit around the sun. . . a. He’s describing milankovich cycles. But wait, didn’t he just say we don’t about drivers of our climate? But now we know Earths orbit influences climate? The ENTIRE basis of AGW is that normal variances can’t explain our current observations. 7.) There has been no significant warming trend in the 21st century. a. Lie. Absolute lie. 8.) Will the temp [go up, flat, or drop], no one knows. a. Horse ****. 9.) “Deniers” is just a made up term to correlate us to holocaust deniers. . . a. Rich, especially considering you just called the people who understand the science ‘warmists’ like they’re a bunch of chicken littles. This is basically “I’m going to call you names but if you call me a name you’re a big meany.” You hide behind the term ‘skeptic’ but you’re not. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will change your mind that humans are influencing global temperatures. You deny and ignore even the most basics of the science. When you try to argue Co2 doesn’t have an influence on planetary temperature is like stating the periodic table of elements is all wrong and elements don’t exist; you fail at the basics. Your ideological disposition has a clear influence on your view of the science. You claim to be a skeptic but then go on to say all the science is wrong. This isn’t the view of a skeptic, this is a denier. Claiming skeptic is stating you don’t have enough information to make an opinion either way, but you claim to already have the answer.
Tried to give you a + Random. I already had. The arrogance of some of these people (who are smarter than me) denying 97% of science in order to claim that the 3% who either don't know or who disagree are the right ones just doesn't make mathematical sense to me.
Tried to give you a + Random. I already had. The arrogance of some of these people (who are smarter than me) denying 97% of science in order to claim that the 3% who either don't know or who disagree are the right ones just doesn't make mathematical sense to me.
No point buying an electric car here because it won't make any difference when you consider what rest of the world is doing. I guess you're pretty sure we're all doomed...
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 08-03-2015).]
Tried to give you a + Random. I already had. The arrogance of some of these people (who are smarter than me) denying 97% of science in order to claim that the 3% who either don't know or who disagree are the right ones just doesn't make mathematical sense to me.
My thing, not even on the scientific consensus, is the platform of their argument.
Basically, they use internet blogs, youtube videos, or random internet findings to declare the ‘faults’ in the science. Is the science perfect? Absolutely not. But they make it seems like every single scientist is a pariah in this giant conspiracy. . . except if that scientist happens to be in the minority position that supports their opinion. . . in which case, they are pure as the driven snow and 100% trustworthy. They then want to be taken seriously on the science and they can’t even get the basics right. It’s like someone screaming the differential of e^10 is 5 and Newton was in a giant conspiracy and didn’t know what he was doing.
I’ve worked with a plethora of scientists in my line of work. These guys were extremely educated and bright and could very easily have gotten their degrees in more lucrative fields like law or in the medical field. They chose their field for a burning desire to understand how things work; it was never about becoming rich. But that’s what the opposition argues. That these guys who were smart enough to get their PhD’s, decided it was easier to get rich doing research on a meager salary compared to education and convince the government to fund your studies rather than you know, get a medical degree and make hundreds of thousands out the gate. Even worse is the current conservative party has a knack for labeling anyone educated as an ‘elitist’. There’s an outright animosity towards pursuing knowledge. Look at Ken Cucinelli going on a witch hunt to go after scientists he disagreed with.
The problem with this is because of the political ramifications. If you keep shouting the same retarded stuff in regards to the science, you’re going to get ignored on the political front. I participate in the OT of another forum, and a lot of people there are lambasting Jeb Bush for his position in the matter. While he agrees AGW is happening, he has a realists approach and thinks nuclear is the answer. As soon as he said that, all the people that deny AGW instantly threw him under the bus. They’re so ardent in their political beliefs, they refuse to concede even the slightest on their position. So what’s going to end up happening is the people on the other far end of the spectrum are going to label them anti-science, which by all accounts is a title they’re currently earning*, and unfortunately, they’ll get left out of the conversation for solutions. So what you’ll end up with is a solution of pipe dreams (wind/solar), rather than one that actually works and is viable (nuclear). This is exactly what happened with the recent light bulb debacle. Rather than say “Hey, yeah, we agree that incandescent bulbs are horribly inefficient and this is having an effect on Co2 emissions. ” They stated “AGW ISN’T REAL! Dah government wants to control your lightbulb! This is communism! Da cons-sta-tooshion!” Because they wouldn’t even agree to the basic tenants of science, they got ignored and what you ended up with are idiots on the other end of the spectrum that railroaded them with fluorescent light bulbs (as opposed to LED’s) so now we have a crap ton of mercury being buried in the ground.
At best, they state that since the science isn’t settled and for such, there’s no harm with keeping the status quo. . . They used this same sort of logically fallacy when it came to lead additives for gasoline, CFC’s and ozone, smoking cigarettes and cancer, etc.
While I agree with the science of the matter, I can separate my political views of it. Local solar (like on houses) compounded with a nuclear infrastructure. I view this approach from the very basic fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. We will run out. Rather than kicking the can down the road for a children, grandchildren, etc, to deal with, how about we start modifying our energy production now? This way, when fossil fuels begin to become exponentially scarce, we as a society will be ahead of the other countries that are struggling. At its basic level, its boyscouts 101: leave the campsite (earth) cleaner than you found it. At a higher level, it’s a lifetime investment into our economy. But that’s not how the current political opposition operates. If they can’t kill it, chop it down, burn it, or blow it up, they don’t want to be part of it.
*Note – The current list of republican nominees, several of them don’t even believe in evolution, let alone AGW.
Tried to give you a + Random. I already had. The arrogance of some of these people (who are smarter than me) denying 97% of science in order to claim that the 3% who either don't know or who disagree are the right ones just doesn't make mathematical sense to me.
Speaking of science and the environment...
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-03-2015).]
Tried to give you a + Random. I already had. The arrogance of some of these people (who are smarter than me) denying 97% of science in order to claim that the 3% who either don't know or who disagree are the right ones just doesn't make mathematical sense to me.
The arrogance of some people? How about the arrogance of you? You don't really believe that 97% number because if you did, YOU WOULDN'T BE DRIVING AROUND IN A TURBO V8 that guzzles gas and destroys the planet with all of its pollutants. That is arrogance not to mention PROOF you don't actually care.
You are a straight up leftist/democrat/liberal wacko hypocrite.
Now quick go cry to cliffy about how I am posting again.
Dude you have completely won me over. Man is causing the climate to change. Now what is your plan to stop the climate from ever changing ever again? I want specifics. Not just "oh we need to use less energy" We all know what that means from leftists like you. It means everyone else has to use less, but you don't have to. Look at Dratts. Drives around in a turbo v8, while telling everyone else they should be using more fuel efficient engines.
So lets hear your plan. Lets hear specifics of how humans are not only going to stop the current change, but to REVERSE it back to 1850. Not only reverse it back to that period of time, but to KEEP IT THAT WAY FOREVER! No more change ever again. Please lets hear your leftist plan of how humans are going to keep the climate from ever changing ever again.
Now what is your plan if other countries don't agree to follow your plan?
The arrogance of some people? How about the arrogance of you? You don't really believe that 97% number because if you did, YOU WOULDN'T BE DRIVING AROUND IN A TURBO V8 that guzzles gas and destroys the planet with all of its pollutants. That is arrogance not to mention PROOF you don't actually care.
You are a straight up leftist/democrat/liberal wacko hypocrite.
Now quick go cry to cliffy about how I am posting again.
Seeing at least two other attacks by you on other members, I'm flattered to be included in that group by you. Thank you very much! No need for me to contact Cliff. I'm sure that he will deal with you by himself. I don't get angry at psychos.
I dont' get angry at hypocrites like you. LOL I find it funny you don't even try to hide your hypocrisy anymore. Saying you care doesn't mean you care. Everyday you fail to prove you care.
watched the video. Do you have an opinion on golden rice? You're one of the 'smarter than me' that I was referring to.
No, I'm not familiar with golden rice, but a quick glance at Wikipedia suggests he may be right about it being able to save lives in poor areas of the world. Ideally I prefer organic food but these impoverished areas are far from ideal conditions.
So it's my arrogance you're referring to for offering an opinion that differs from your own? Don't you wonder WHY the co-founder of GreenPeace, someone with a PhD in Ecology, thinks all the global warming hysteria is just hype? Based on his history fighting for the environment and educational background, I'd expect him to be a fervent supporter of the cause if the science were indeed "settled."
No, I'm not familiar with golden rice, but a quick glance at Wikipedia suggests he may be right about it being able to save lives in poor areas of the world. Ideally I prefer organic food but these impoverished areas are far from ideal conditions.
So it's my arrogance you're referring to for offering an opinion that differs from your own? Don't you wonder WHY the co-founder of GreenPeace, someone with a PhD in Ecology, thinks all the global warming hysteria is just hype? Based on his history fighting for the environment and educational background, I'd expect him to be a fervent supporter of the cause if the science were indeed "settled."
No you're not arrogant. I accept that not everyone has opinions like my own and my opinions have changed a lot over the years, so I would not be surprised if they change again. Golden rice seems to be the good side of GMO. I'm not so comfortable with Monsanto and Dows other efforts. Plants that allow more roundup, basically a type of agent orange or plants that have their own pesticide in the food that we eat do scare me. That and the possibility of unleashing varieties that have unforeseen consequences and then being unable to control them.
Originally posted by dratts: Golden rice seems to be the good side of GMO. I'm not so comfortable with Monsanto and Dows other efforts. Plants that allow more roundup, basically a type of agent orange or plants that have their own pesticide in the food that we eat do scare me. That and the possibility of unleashing varieties that have unforeseen consequences and then being unable to control them.
We're in agreement there. IF Golden Rice's positive claims are valid, it sounds like a good thing. Sure, we're modifying the food but the "natural" solution is for famine to reduce the population. It may be the better, if not perfect, alternative.
I absolutely don't trust or like Monsanto. I don't care for their heavy handed legal tactics against growers who don't use their products. On a side not, I'm very much in favor of GMO and country of origin labeling on food, but that's straying a bit far off topic.
Back on topic, I shared the video above because I found it compelling that someone with an established history fighting for the environment as well as having an advanced degree in Ecology would separate himself from the group that is allegedly trying to save the planet. We know CO2 levels have been both higher and lower and global temps have been higher and lower than today. When I see how the political class uses climate change for money and power, I'm as skeptical of them as I am of Monsanto telling me I don't need to know if my food is genetically modified. The IPCC has previously stated climate change is a means to redistribute wealth. Just Google "ipcc redistribution of wealth"
quote
PCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-03-2015).]
The Obama administration today announced its Clean Power Plan rules, which set limits on carbon emissions from power plants nationwide. At a White House event, President Obama trumpeted the rule as “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.” Unfortunately, the Clean Power Plan packs neither the environmental nor diplomatic punch the Obama administration has claimed. Moreover, contrary to the White House’s assertion, it offers states little flexibility and comes at enormous economic expense. Begin with the impact on climate change. The United States is responsible for only 5 percent of the world’s total carbon emissions. In other words, “even if the United States stopped emitting all CO2 now and going forward, it would only reduce emissions by 0.15 degrees Celsius — that’s all we have to work with,” says the Cato Institute’s assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science, Chip Knappenberger. Using the EPA’s own climate-model emulator, Knappenberger and his colleague Patrick J. Michaels determined that the Clean Power Plan rules will affect climate by less than two-hundredths of a degree Celsius by 2100, an amount so miniscule that it’s nearly impossible to measure. Even the Obama administration and its allies in Congress acknowledge this, but they claim that the Clean Power Plan will help them reach a broader agreement at the United Nations climate conference in Paris late this fall. One big problem, though: There’s little reason to expect that the developing world will make the economic sacrifices necessary to reduce emissions. Beijing is a key bellweather, and early developments in negotiations aren’t promising. Last November, the United States and China inked a climate pact, hyped by John Kerry as an agreement of “great consequence in the fight against climate change.” But despite the Obama administration’s spin, the sacrifices in this pact are wholly one-sided. China promises only to “stop increasing” carbon emissions by 2030 — which is to say, Beijing will allow emissions to increase for another 15 years, even as the United States requires power plants, by 2030, to reduce their carbon emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels. China also will strive to get one-fifth of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, relying on dirtier energy to fill the rest. China’s pollution problems are severe, and the valid environmental concerns of its citizens have increasing political importance. Nevertheless, the cadres in Beijing rely on economic growth for their legitimacy; so, with roughly 200 million Chinese living on $1.25 a day or less, it makes sense that the Chinese Communist Party hesitates to impose environmental protections that could hinder growth. If, in 2030, Beijing is continuing to prioritize economic development over climate-change protections, the United States will have few mechanisms to force China to live up to its end of the bargain. At the same time that the EPA overstates the impact of the Clean Power Plan on climate change, it substantially understates the impact on the national economy. But in the United States, the federal government plans to strictly enforce these draconian regulations. At the same time that the EPA overstates the impact of the Clean Power Plan on climate change, it substantially understates the impact on the national economy. (In fact, the Government Accountability Office has slammed the EPA for its faulty calculations in the past.) Even so, the EPA has predicted that complying with the Clean Power Plan will be equivalent to the combined total cost of all Clean Air Act rules set forth up to 2010. Other estimates are even more pessimistic. National Economic Research Associates predicts an eye-popping compliance costs of up to $479 billion. Though President Obama is claiming the Clean Power Plan will ultimately save Americans $85 per year on their utility bills, the NERA study found that households in 43 states will actually see double-digit price hikes. The National Black Chamber of Commerce reports that non-white families will especially suffer from these price increases in electricity, while blacks and Hispanics will also suffer the loss of 19 million jobs by 2035 as a result of the Clean Power Plan. While the Obama administration claims that the Clean Power Plan is flexible, allowing states to figure out the best way to implement the regulations, the reality is quite different. If the EPA doesn’t approve of the plans that state legislatures submit, the agency can just impose its own methods, as it has done with the rules on regional haze. RELATED: Fixing the EPA: The $8-Billion-Dollar-a-Year Agency Gives Us a Chance to See Whether We Need It At All Already, states are pushing back. Fourteen states, along with the Murray Energy Corporation and others in the energy sector, launched a recent challenge to the Clean Power Plan in federal court, though a judge ruled in June that the suit was premature. More than a dozen states anticipate taking future legal action against the regulations, and others have threatened to defy the EPA’s mandates outright. As these legal challenges continue, congressional Republicans are also pushing legislation to scale back the EPA’s rules. The Clean Power Plan exemplifies bad policy, deeply harming the economy without meaningful environmental or diplomatic achievements. States and the other two branches of federal government should act fast to halt this wrongheaded executive action.
... Begin with the impact on climate change. The United States is responsible for only 5 percent of the world’s total carbon emissions. In other words, “even if the United States stopped emitting all CO2 now and going forward, it would only reduce emissions by 0.15 degrees Celsius — that’s all we have to work with,” says the Cato Institute’s assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science, Chip Knappenberger. Using the EPA’s own climate-model emulator, Knappenberger and his colleague Patrick J. Michaels determined that the Clean Power Plan rules will affect climate by less than two-hundredths of a degree Celsius by 2100, an amount so miniscule that it’s nearly impossible to measure. Even the Obama administration and its allies in Congress acknowledge this, but they claim that the Clean Power Plan will help them reach a broader agreement at the United Nations climate conference in Paris late this fall.
Canada is less than 2% of the world's CO2 emissions, but somehow the oilsands are blamed as single-handedly destroying the planet by environmentalist groups who are too afraid to protest where the real problems are: the Middle East, China, India etc. Our Prime Minister has repeatedly pointed out that anything Canada/US does is "undone" without the others on board as well.
This is just a political move by Obama to get praises at the U.N. conference in Paris this fall. Maybe Obama's angling for a future U.N. job or another Nobel Prize???
