The Last Voice of Reason? Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

Last year in Cancun, politicians agreed to gather in and divide up more than $100,000,000,000 per year to "avert" climate disaster. This, the result of political and scientific "analysis" of the effects of minute temperature changes over the past few decades, and on speculation, manipulation and "proxy data" (i.e., made up to fill in gaps) to model trends for the future of the climate.

MIT Professor of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen believes it is an unwarranted and insupportable reaction to a "catastrophe" made up to serve other purposes than prediction of climate changes over time, or man's effects on them.

He sums up this hysterical scenario:

"The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well."

thegwpf.org...

But, the AGW faithful will retort, small changes accumulate - there is "feedback" that magnifies effects beyond what data show to be true.

To which Lindzen points out:

"For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.
...
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat."

No, the high priests of AGW will argue, there is a "consensus" that says man is destroying the atmosphere with CO2.

Lindzen notes:

"When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further."

While Professor Lindzen acknowledges errors in some of his earlier research, he uses independent data and the research of other experts to provide the scientific explanations against blind faith in the AGW theory.

The science for and against AGW is NOT settled; high priest Phil Jones says so himself!

Cogent factual analysis of the current responses, and summaries of the underlying data and studies on BOTH sides of the argument, as presented in this recent report, are well worth consideration by AGW advocates as well as non-believers who find themselves drawn into the hysterics.

deny ignorance
jw

"The Social Cost of Carbon" Tax Scheme: Barack Obama Secretly Sneaks Carbon Tax on Almost Everything!

In 2006 "econometrist" Nicholas Stern published a widely-criticized economic study that served as the foundation for the imposition of carbon taxes in various forms in the EU and UK, stifling economic growth and doing little to help in carbon remediation.

In February 2010, the Obama administration quietly and surreptitiously set in place significant regulation and taxation of CO2: "the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)."

According to economist Frank Ackerman, “it is the most important number you’ve never heard of.”
www.e3network.org...

This is precisely the politicization of CO2 environmentalism for which Stern has since been criticized and many of his conclusions discredited.

Between the middle of 2009 and February 2010, hand-picked members the Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Transportation and Treasury — but no outside organizations -- cobbled together, with no public debate, a private "consensus" on how to price carbon in the U.S.
www.miller-mccune.com...

"The SCC figure adopted last February is $21per ton of CO2 (about two weeks' use of your car). The value has already been applied to standards for fuel efficiency, and tailpipe emissions. It will be figured into any carbon mitigation strategy, whether cap and trade, cap and dividend or carbon tax."www.miller-mccune.com...

It has also been applied to new appliance efficiency costs and standards, and is being considered for industrial and power-generation applications as well. The initial rate in the UK was approx. $43/ton; it is now closer to $125. Once imposed, the "creep up" is inevitable.

(Think back to 2009, when OMB was estimating costs of carbon tax -- they "guessed" up to $8,000+/year!)

Have you noticed higher gasolines prices? SCC adds at least $0.20 per gallon!
Has anyone else seen higher electric, heat or food prices?

And, this is when the Feds were warning about deflation. As with everything else about the Obama administration, say one thing, do the opposite!

The catch is that the added costs have been slipped into our regulatory apparatus unannounced and without public debate!

Law professors Jonathan Masur and Eric Posner (Obama's ex-colleagues from the Univ. of Chicago) decry this type of "Feasibility Analysis" as opposed to more open and traditional "cost-benefit analysis."

(Didn't Obama just get raves from the MSM for espousing cost-benefit analysis?)But, he employs a criticized analytic that these legal scholars call "unsuitable for government."

Masur and Posner elaborate:

"[w]e stumbled upon the fact that the government is in effect regulating carbon through the SCC.
...
[T]he sensible thing to do would be to have a national discussion on how to price carbon, [but wonder if] the Obama administration deems this discussion politically impossible or politically dangerous. Inherent in the SCC number are moral and diplomatic judgments as well as scientific and economic uncertainties. Therefore, it reflects some very political decisions that are probably best made in a political way by political actors. But these were made very quietly in a room among agency heads and economists."

  "Feasibility Analysis"

There was a time for public comment, but it came during discussions about rules for fuel economy and emissions related to the Clean Air Act, and not during a specifically designated climate process.

Ackerman says, "A decision was made through the interagency task force with almost no one knowing that it was happening. There’s no office that claims credit, no website that explains anything about it. This crucial number, which turns out to be the fulcrum for climate policy, was decided in secret by a task force with no names attached to it.”

www.e3network.org...

Seems like regardless of your "faith" in AGW, the Obama administration has already written the basic rules governing the prices we will pay for our lifestyles for the foreseeable future.

They're just not going to tell you that they are doing it.
Why would anyone need to use force or threats when we do not even see it happening.

The extra $0.20 per gallon is accepted. The added $5.00 per month for heat and light are not even noticed.

This is the perverse beauty of the "feasibility analysis" (Read: "What can we get away with?"), as opposed to the "cost-benefit analysis" Obama claims he's applying to all regulations!

Even his former Chicago School of Law cronies have called him on it. But, where's the MSM? Where are the headlines and expose's?

We are being lied to and taking it in the ass without even a whimper or a little vaseline. 

I hate to tell you this, but if you think the unrest in the Middle East is due to Islamist sentiment, you are in for a horrible shock.

The revolts we are witness to today are the result of oppressive government and powerlessness. It is spreading. It will cross into the former Soviet Union, move into the Western European countries strugglig to keep afloat and employed, and jump across the Channel.

Once the UK falls, it will "jump the pond." I saw this coming before the inauguration. It is all but inevitable. 


deny ignorance

jw

Did Obama's National Intel Chief Lie to Congress, or is He Just Incompetent?

Why on Earth would James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, tell the United States Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood is a non-secular, pacifist organization?

The director of the United States' intelligence operations would be well-prepared to advise us of the political and social implications of the Egyptian unrest, and so we would expect a frank appraisal of the influence of the major coalition, the "Muslim Brotherhood."

What Congress received, and the MSM echoed, was the DNI's "assessment" that the Muslim Brotherhood was "non-secular" and "peaceful."

This flies in the face of the Muslim Brotherhood's avowed Islamic religious direction and its support of the murderous Hamas and Iranian regimes that espouse the annihilation of infidels.

Clapper is either a bald-faced liar or has adopted a politically-correct (and equally untrue) position of appeasement of the most-likely ascendant political-religious organization in the region.

James Clapper, the head of intelligence for the United States of America, has explained to Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular.” It further has “eschewed violence,” decries al-Qaeda as a “perversion of Islam,” and really just wants “social ends” and “a betterment of the political order in Egypt.”
...
This is the Muslim Brotherhood whose motto brays that the Koran is its law and jihad is its way. The MB whose Palestinian branch, the terrorist organization Hamas, was created for the specific purpose of destroying Israel — the goal its charter says is a religious obligation. It is the organization dedicated to the establishment of Islamicized societies and, ultimately, a global caliphate. It is an organization whose leadership says al-Qaeda’s emir, Osama bin Laden, is an honorable jihad warrior who was “close to Allah on high” in “resisting the occupation.”

www.nationalreview.com...

After 18 days of indecision and lack of commitment, have we now accepted the influence of radical Muslims as "the Law of the Land" in the Middle East?

As with any political organization, stating a "principle," and adhering to a tenet are two different matters.

Much as I hate to cite Wikipedia as a "source," the history continues:

... [S]tarting in 1936, it began to oppose British rule in Egypt. Many Egyptian nationalists accuse the Brotherhood of violent killings during this period. ...
...
"General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" makes the objectives of the MB clear: "The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

en.wikipedia.org...

Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious and political organization founded in Egypt with branches throughout the Arab world.

www.cfr.org...

Want more?

The Brotherhood has not only described itself as an Islamist group, committed to implementing Sharia law, it spawned Egyptian Islamic Jihad -- which offed Anwar Sadat in 1981 and later joined forces with al Qaeda. Another Brotherhood offshoot is Hamas, the terrorist group that holds Gaza in its bloody grip. It's no fan of the Camp David peace accords with Israel, either.

www.nypost.com...  

deny ignorance.
jw