Climate change: Copenhagen, EPA, and ‘Climategate’ converge
- Filed in:
- Clean manufacturing
As the Copenhagen Climate Conference 2009 opened today in Denmark, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made good on its promise to declare that greenhouse gases endanger human health.
According to an article from The Houston Chronicle, the announcement, “signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn't act first on its own.” The ruling by the EPA, which was widely expected after it issued a preliminary finding earlier this year, will allow the agency to regulate planet-warming gases even without legislation in the U.S. Congress.
As CBS Broadcasting, Inc. reports, the action by the EPA clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.
CBS reports Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate, as saying, "This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change. The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving."
A perusal of online articles reveals mixed reactions to the ruling. While environmentalists welcomed the announcement, saying it will provide President Obama with more momentum and credibility going into the Climate Conference, greenhouse gas emitters have a different take. “…business groups said regulating carbon emissions through the EPA under existing clean air law would put new economic burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs, and drive up energy prices,” reported The Houston Chronicle.
The article then quotes Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as saying, "It will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project.”
‘Climategate’ continues to brew
Meanwhile, the United Nations has said that it will review claims made that U.K. scientists tweaked climate change reports in order to boost evidence suggesting it is a man-made phenomenon. The claims were made after a series of e-mails were leaked on the Internet – a controversy now being referred to as “Climategate.”
In mid-November, U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma said that he’d begun an investigation into what he alleges to be the manipulation of global warming research. Inohofe also said he wanted to look into whether the conclusions of an international panel on global warming — and the policies based on it — were distorted, reported The New York Times.
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Are you angry about this obvious fraud and the national media's complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue? Take responsibility and take action. Stop all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. Stop donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. START donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. People that government leaders and employees are sworn to protect. Write your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. Write your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. That’s what I have done in response to this outrageous violation of the public trust. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near to the truth?
John -- What are the chances that you have even an inkling of the truth? Slim. Please POST the data from the relevant climate scientist publications (NOAA, NASA, IPCC, etc. etc.) and the executive summaries from their major reports, then let's see what they reveal. If you then claim that the vast majority of the world's scientific community has been directed to falsify all their results, then you are barking up the wrong misinformation tree in quite a brainwashed state. Try looking at the denier side of funding, as that's where the real fear you buy, originates. Inhofe? Sure...... What a scientist! YEARS of climate data coming out of his office! He's proven time and time again....... nothing.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) earned a perfect score from the oil industry’s top trade association last year.
• Sen. Inhofe and his leadership PAC have received $2,182,631 from the oil & gas industries since 1998, according to OpenSecrets.org. During that time, America’s foreign oil imports have increased 21 percent.
• Sen. Inhofe has increased his oil & gas industry contribution yield each campaign cycle, finishing among the Senate league leaders in 2008.
• Sen. Inhofe took to the Senate floor in 2003 to call global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
84 of Inhofe's Global Warming Deniers Have Taken Industry Money
Top 5 Contributors, 2001-2006, Campaign Cmte
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Murray Energy $22,800 $12,800 $10,000
Koch Industries $22,750 $6,750 $16,000
National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $20,044 $0 $20,044
Cummins Inc $16,000 $10,000 $6,000
OGE Energy $15,500 $6,000 $9,500
Give me a break John. Whose being bamboozled here?
Anonymous, world oil production peak four years ago and production is now in permanent decline. Check the IEA EIA websites. In twelve years we'll be using a third less oil whether we want to or not. We will achieve the Kyoto targets whether we want to or not. We all will be producing less much CO2, whether we want to or not. Big Oil as you call them only controls 4 percent of the world's remaining oil reserves. They are toast. You are toast. CO2 is not, has not, and never will be a problem. You have much bigger problems you need to be fuming about. Finally, please explain to all of us how an infinitesimal trace gas (.04%) with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of unity (1) per the IPCC, and coincidentally maximizes it’s effect on world-wide plant growth at two and a half times it’s current atmospheric concentration, trumps the sun as our planet’s principal climate driver. Don't send me a reference of some favorite "expert" of yours. YOU TELL ME, EINSTEIN.
Since your unable to comply with my original requests., I 'd suggest you quit while you think you're ahead. I've been down this road before. . Peak oil? Non-sequiturs, galore, unrelated to the data (previously) in question. I've proven my point about your original paranoiac rant. The rest is out there for your perusal. Einstein has nothing to do with it either. Blabber on all you want. Goodbye.
Correction: YOU TELL ME, SUNSHINE.
Okay Johnny, You asked for it. I had a moment away from the lab. Here's what I tell you.... longwave radiation. Look it up and find out what absorbs it. Don't need much CO2 to change the game. A trace, ticked upward, will do. Not all molecules are the same either. I sense you want to implicate water vapor as the culprit, yet you are claiming global warming isn't real? Can't have your cake and eat it too. Regardless, compare water vapor to CO2. How long do these remain in the atmosphere? Yes, water vapor DOES increase the greenhouse effect, but this is initiated by man-made CO2. The greenhouse effect is real. This is not a government plot. You can argue about the policy to deal with it, but stop pretending it doesn't exist. You can't take CO2 out of the picture by quoting pseudo-science talk from other sources to make yourself seem as though you're conveying reputable info. You're not. Stick to forestry. That's right. This denier mumbo jumbo is intentional obfuscation to distract from what's already been proven and measured over and over by serious scientists.
Anyway, nice lift job there, buddy... Boy does this look familiar. Dig this at the bottom in bold! I'm assuming you wrote that letter, since it's almost an exact quote on your question to me above.
Follow this link to see the real thing!
Time is tight today, Shooters. I’m working on the Weekend Edition as I type this because of anticipated scheduling problems. The folks in web production are tapping their feet impatiently.
So let’s get to your letters…
Gary,
Please have JHK explain to all of us how an infinitesimal trace gas (.04%) with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of unity (1) per the IPCC, and coincidentally maximizes it’s effect on world-wide plant growth at two and a half times it’s current atmospheric concentration, trumps the sun as our planet’s principal climate driver. Grand deniers like me didn’t create nor support the scientific farce of Global Warming, which has overshadowed the evolving catastrophe of PeakOil.
Your letter? http://www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=11812
CLIMATEGATE
THE LEBENSRAUM FALLACY
The Lebensraum doctrine of Green activists rests on three tenets they accept with an act of faith:
• We are running out of space. World population is already excessive on a limited planet and cannot grow without dire effects.
• We are running out of means. The planet’s non-renewable resources are being depleted by consumption at a rate that renders economic expansion unsustainable.
• We shall fry. Carbon dioxide emitted by human economic activity causes global warming that shall make the planet uninhabitable.
When such tenets are quantified, the contrast between true and false stands out sharply.
Is overpopulation a grave problem? The sum of urban areas of the United States is equivalent to 2% of the area of the country, and to 6% in densely inhabited countries such as England and Holland. And there is plenty of green in urban areas. If comparison is limited to land covered by buildings and pavements the occupied land in the whole world amounts to 0,04% of the terrestrial area of the planet. With 99.96% unoccupied the idea of an overcrowded planet is an exaggeration. Population forecasts are uncertain but the most accepted ones foresee stability of world population to be reached in the 21st century. According to some, world population may begin to decline at the end of this century. With so much elbowroom it is untenable that world population is excessive or shall ever become so.
Strictly speaking, no natural resource is non-renewable in a universe ruled by the Law of Conservation of Mass. In popular form it holds that “Nothing is created, nothing is lost, all is transformed.” Human usage is not subtracted from the mass of the planet, and in theory all material used may be recycled. The possibility of doing so depends on availability and low cost of energy. When fusion energy becomes operative it will be available in practically unlimited quantities. The source is deuterium, a hydrogen isotope found in water, in a proportion of 0.03%. One cubic kilometer of seawater contains more energy than can be obtained from combustion of all known petroleum reserves of the world. Since oceans hold 3 billion cubic kilometers of water, energy will last longer than the human species.
There is no growing shortfall of resources signaled by rising prices. Since the middle of the 19th century The Economist publishes consistent indices of values of commodities and they have all declined, over the period, due to technological advances. The decline has been benign. The cost of feeding a human being was 8 times greater in 1850 than it is today. In 1950, less than half of a world population of 2 billion had an adequate diet, above 2000 calories per day. Today, 80% have the diet, and world population is three times greater.
There is a problem with the alleged global warming. It stopped in 1998, after having risen in the 23 previous years. It unleashed a scare over its effects. Since 1998 it has been followed by 11 years of declining temperatures, in a portent of a cold 21st century. This shows that there are natural forces shaping climate, more powerful than manmade carbon dioxide and anything mankind can do for or against world climate. The natural forces include cyclical oscillation of ocean temperatures, sunspot activity and the effect of magnetic activity of the sun on cosmic rays. All such cycles are foreseeable, but there is no general theory of climate with predictive capacity. What knowledge exists comes from one hundred fields, such as meteorology, oceanography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, etc. with partial contributions to the understanding of climate.
Devoid of support of solid theory and empirical data, the mathematical models that underpin alarmist forecasts amount to speculative thought that reflects the assumptions fed into the models. Agenda driven computer simulations offer no rational basis for public policy that inhibits economic activity “to save the planet”. And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is the nutrient needed for photosynthesis that supports the food chain of all living beings of the planet. But carbon dioxide became a toxic-by-decree of the Obama administration, with an act that smells of rotten bananas of a comic opera republic.
Stories of doom circulate daily. Anything that happens on earth has been blamed on global warming: a Himalayan earthquake, a volcanic eruption, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, tribal wars in Africa, a dust storm in Australia, recent severe winters in North America, the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, known for five centuries, the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota. Evo Morales blames Americans for the summer floods in Bolivia.
Global warming is not a physical phenomenon; it is a political and journalistic phenomenon that finds parallel in the totalitarian doctrines that inebriated masses deceived by demagogues. As Chris Patten put it: “Green politics at its worst amounts to a sort of Zen fascism; less extreme, it denounces growth and seeks to stop the world so that we can all get off”. In the view of Professor Aaron Wildavsky global warming is the mother of all environmental scares. “Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.” Their dream is the hippies’ lifestyle of idleness, penury, long hair, unshaven face, blue jeans, sandals and vegetarian diet, imposed on the world by decree of Big Brother, and justified by the Lebensraum fallacy.
You need medication. Your last post is just another cut and paste job. This time, from Alan neil Ditchfield. He posts this same piece everywhere, verbatim.
HORSECRAP: "Since 1998 it has been followed by 11 years of declining temperatures, in a portent of a cold 21st century."
Oh, and this was from YOUR letter, right Einstein? ..................
Gary,
Please have JHK explain to all of us how an infinitesimal trace gas (.04%) with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of unity (1) per the IPCC, and coincidentally maximizes it’s effect on world-wide plant growth at two and a half times it’s current atmospheric concentration, trumps the sun as our planet’s principal climate driver. Grand deniers like me didn’t create nor support the scientific farce of Global Warming, which has overshadowed the evolving catastrophe of PeakOil.
These are YOUR words right? From the guy who is so concerned about posting original, unbiased thought. You go ahead and keep finding those posts to reinforce your beliefs. Then and cut and past them all over the place.
Glad to have exposed you... again.
The world is still not flat and CO2 is a major cause of the greenhouse effect. Goodbye, for real, Johnny.
Sunshine, you failed to mention this point, "Global Warming Potential (GWP) of unity (1) per the IPCC". This makes CO2 dead last as a Global Warming trace gas at 20, 50 and 100 years. Oh, did I mention trace gases only compose 1 percent of our atmosphere. Oxygen and nitrogen make up the other 99%. And, CO2 is an insignificant portion of that 1%. Or do you classify .04% as significant. I get the sense you do think this insignificant trace gas does trump the sun as our planet's climate driver. Is that correct? Care to elaborate on this point or are you cooking up more ClimateGate fodder in the lab? Global Warming/Climate Change labsters are getting a bad rep my friend. Can you clear some of this up for us?
We certainly DO classify .04% as significant... when taken in CONTEXT of the particular analysis, substance, effects, etc., and not cherry picked simply because it SOUNDS like a small percentage of something is irrelevant. So, how about if I give you a glass of water with .04% arsenic? That .04% would be 400,000 ppb. The EPA's upper limit for safety is 10ppb. Do you think that would have a significant effect, in some way, on you? As for your comparison of CO2 with other trace gases, you're completely overlooking the synergistic effects of CO2 equivalents over time. The only reason I keep posting here is because your are obviously not learned in matters of climate research or even in basic analysis, as is readily observed by your ridiculous, rhetorical question about small percentages being irrelevant. Yet you keep mindlessly parroting other people's posts you've read on the internet. You truly are in need of some help, either mentally or academically. Seek it. I'll give you this... You DO provide obnoxious entertainment for people doing serious work. Please go away now though. It's starting to become like watching a really bad rerun.
Sunshine (sorry I don't know your real name, perhaps you can help me out),
I'm in total agreement with the IPCC, which notes "CO2 has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of unity (1)". This makes CO2 dead last as a Global Warming trace gas at 20, 50 and 100 years. Look it up in the the IPCC reports. It's right there in black and white. They also note in writing that they really don't understand all the solar dynamics affecting our earth's climate. In that light, together with an evolving economic depression, it seems odd this Administration would be writing legislation to impose draconian new taxes on EVERYONE based on the use of CO2. Now how regressive is that? Wouldn't you agree?
I'm I reading this right? You compare carbon dioxide (CO2) to arsenic? Carbon is the stuff of life. Without CO2 there would be no photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis there would be no plant life. Without plant life there would be no animal life, or humans for that matter. As a matter of fact photosynthesis stops at an atmospheric concentration of (.02%), half of the current level. And at two and a half times the current CO2 levels (.1%) plant growth is optimized around the entire planet. Doubling CO2 concentrations increases plant growth by 33%. That's why commercial green house operators invest heavily in CARBON DIOXIDE GENERATORS (Google it) to maximize the productivity of their fixed growing space. This fact also explains Prof. M. Mann's bristle cone proxy results which showed that nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past several decades than elevated levels of CO2 (regardless of the source) together with moderate sun-driven warming. He who controls carbon (or carbon dioxide) controls the planet and everyone on it. This explains the activities at Copenhagen. Again, wouldn't you agree? I would love to see your argument, if you don't.
Greenhouse effect is the gradual warming of the air surrounding the earth as a result of heat being trapped by environmental pollution.
Anonymous,
You are both gutless for not having the cojones to post your name, and profoundly ignorant of basic logic and the published facts in IPCC Technical Reports. Given your lab work references it sounds as though you are dependent on the fraud of Global Warming grants to cover your beer and prostitute servicing needs. Keep up the fair work and eco-religious zeal.
Post new comment