{"id":568669,"date":"2010-05-18T07:21:19","date_gmt":"2010-05-18T11:21:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prisonplanet.com\/?p=43222"},"modified":"2010-05-18T07:21:19","modified_gmt":"2010-05-18T11:21:19","slug":"kerry-%e2%80%93-lieberman-corrupt-climate-science-used-to-destroy-us-economy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/568669","title":{"rendered":"Kerry \u2013 Lieberman: Corrupt Climate Science Used To Destroy US Economy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Via Prison Planet.com \u00bb Commentary<\/p>\n

Dr. Tim Ball
\nCanada Free Press<\/a>
\nMay 18, 2010<\/p>\n

The Kerry – Lieberman American Power Act (APA) is a disastrous, unnecessary solution for a non-existent problem. Worse, it\u2019s a problem that exists only in a grossly inadequate computer model whose projections have never been correct. It is predicated on the false assumption that an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase. Every record of any duration for any period in Earth\u2019s history shows temperature increases before CO2 increases.\u00a0 The false assumption is the basis of all global warming and climate change used in the corrupted research and models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is impossible to imagine such an unjustified basis for any action, except to undermine the US economy for political gain.<\/p>\n

It will make the US economy uncompetitive, dramatically increase the cost of living and give more power to the government. This is already proven in the failure of countries that have pursued similar alternative energies and green economies.<\/p>\n

The name of the Act is in the deceptive tradition of climate-based energy policy. It was carbon credits, then carbon tax, cap and trade, and now the APA but they are all the same and completely unnecessary.\u00a0 Carbon credits were designed as a global equalization of wealth. Developed nations had to pay for the sin of making their money by using fossil fuels and producing the planet destroying global warming. Cap and Trade appeared virtuous by capping the planet-destroying CO2 while creating trade and business opportunity. It is actually the same old tax grab with more government control. The APA invokes patriotism and implies energy independence, especially from oil. The spill in the Gulf is unfortunate but has reinforced the push. As Rahm Emmanuel, White House Chief of Staff said<\/a>, \u201cNever let a serious crisis go to waste.\u201d<\/p>\n

The IPCC Provide Corrupt Scientific Basis<\/h3>\n

It provides the leverage to achieve the stated Obama administration goal of energy independence and a shift to alternative energy. However, it is much more than that because as Richard Lindzen<\/a> said \u201cControlling carbon is a bureaucrats dream. If you control carbon you control life<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The IPCC Reports and especially the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) are used to demonize CO2. Ironically, they provide evidence of how inadequate they are for taking such dramatic, drastic and unnecessary political action.<\/p>\n

In the Reports what is initially included and then excluded tells the story. For example, a graph (Figure 1) showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was included in the 1990 IPCC Report. It was a problem for Michael Mann and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) so it disappeared in later reports and then was replaced in the 2001 Report by the corrupted \u2018hockey stick\u2019 graph, as they rewrote history.<\/p>\n

\"Kerry
\nFigure 1: Temperatures of Europe for last 1000 years.
\nSource: IPCC 1990 (Fig; 7c) Report<\/p>\n

Figure 2 shows a table from the 2001 Report. It identifies estimates of some factors causing changes in radiative forcing because of human activities. Why do they then include \u201csolar irradiance\u201d as the only \u201cnatural\u201d forcing. The column \u201cLOSU\u201d on the right side is critical and amusing. It stands for \u201cLevel of Scientific Understanding\u201d so by their own measure only two are considered high and that is very debatable. Four of nine variables are low yet they are only the ones they chose. Even more bizarre they claimed solar irradiance explained at least 50% of temperature change up to 50 years ago, they were 90% certain that since then it was all attributable to human increases in CO2.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Kerry<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Kerry
\nFigure 2: 2001 IPCC Radiative Forcing Table
\nSource<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Figure 3 shows the same table in the 2007 Report and mysteriously the LOSU column, estimated forcing values and spatial scale disappear.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Kerry
\nFigure 3: 2007 IPCC Radiative forcing table.
\nSource<\/a>:<\/p>\n

A few years ago Environmental Scientists at Rutgers University listed processes that must be included in any computer model. They include, a) Wind, b) Radiation, c) Clouds, d) Precipitation, e) Air-sea exchanges of moisture, energy, and momentum, f) Air-land exchanges of moisture, energy and momentum, g) Soil moisture, h) Ground water, i) Chemistry of greenhouse gases, j) Aerosols, k) Ocean temperature, salinity, currents, l) Sea ice, m) Snow, n) Glaciers, o) Vegetation p) and Ocean biota. We have virtually no measures and only crude estimates of most of these variables. The models are inadequate scientifically in a multitude of ways. Consider the following comment about underlying mathematical issues.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cA number of recent papers analyzing the nature of climate models have yielded a stunning result little known outside of mathematical circles\u2014climate models like the ones relied on by the IPCC contain \u201cirreducible imprecision.\u201d According to one researcher, all interesting solutions for atmospheric and oceanic simulation (AOS) models are chaotic, hence almost certainly structurally unstable. Furthermore, this instability is an intrinsic mathematical property of the models which can not be eliminated. Analysis suggests<\/a> that models should only be used to study processes and phenomena, not for precise comparisons with nature.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Three reasons for Kerry \u2013 Lieberman; a massive tax grab, crippling of the US economy, and offer of salvation through total government control<\/h3>\n

So the science is wrong and the computer models don\u2019t work. Even if all human produced CO2 was eliminated tomorrow we would not be able to detect the difference in the amount in the atmosphere. The total humans produce is within the error of the estimate of at least three natural sources. For example, with the recent recession human production has decreased with no effect on global measurements. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) treats CO2 as a pollutant based on an ignorant ruling by the US Supreme Court. Kerry \u2013 Lieberman proposes to improve the environment by reducing CO2 when an increase is beneficial to the planet\u2019s plants. Too bad the plants don\u2019t get a vote.<\/p>\n

There is no scientific justification for claims CO2 is causing global warming. It is a non-existent problem. Reducing the amount is harmful not helpful to the economy or plants and not necessary. It will cripple industry with draconian rules and taxation to make the entire economy expensive and uncompetitive. Alternate energies will not provide adequate power replacement and increase costs through the subsidies necessary to make them even remotely viable. Green jobs will cost regular jobs as Spain and other jurisdictions have discovered. Energy independence is easily achieved with conventional sources and a transition to nuclear power and coal for home and industry, natural gas for vehicle power and the oil industry for petrochemical needs. There are only three reasons for Kerry \u2013 Lieberman; a massive tax grab, crippling of the US economy, and offer of salvation through total government control.<\/p>\n

\n

Related Posts:<\/h3>\n