“People who want to change the world should start with a small garden.” Leo Aikman (Atlanta Journal – circa 1975)
Garden Hell! The Obama Administration has decided to save God’s planet!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcement that it will, by regulation, reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent over the next 15 years would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. CO2 is a trace gas absolutely necessary for the health of the planet.
The planet currently has about 400 parts CO2 per million parts of atmosphere by volume (ppm). Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore tweets: “Below 150ppm plants die. At 1,600 happiest.” Nurseries try to maintain 1,000 ppm.
For CO2 levels to drive temperatures the CO2 changes would precede the temperature changes. We now know that temperature changes precede the CO2 changes by about 800 years. Which is cause and which is effect?
This file picture shows an enormous iceberg (R) breaking off the Knox Coast in the Australian Antarctic Territory on January 11, 2008. A UN panel said on 27 September 2013 it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century. Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images
For years we have been told that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) studies, which are the gold standard of this fraud, are peer-reviewed studies and thus may not be questioned. Then we learn that 40 percent of the studies come not from peer-reviewed journals, but from propaganda produced by Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Federation.
In 2007 the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. That did not come from a peer-reviewed study.
As Christopher Booker reported in The Telegraph in 2007, it didn’t come from a study at all, but from “an interview given by an Indian glaciologist to an obscure Indian environmental magazine called Down To Earth. In a game of Chinese whispers, this erroneous claim was then repeated in New Scientist, quoted in a report by environmental campaigning group WWF, and then cited as fact by the IPCC.”
The IPCC apologized in 2010 and removed the claim from all documents.
And then there is the conversation stopper; 97 percent of scientists agree! Several articles have been published over the last decade arguing that an overwhelming percentage of scientists agree on climate change. In a recent Wall Street Journal article Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, two recognized experts in climate science, thoroughly discredited each of them.
(AP/Charlie Riedel, File)
The most recent claim by John Cook and others concludes from a review of published studies on the climate that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, notes that Dr. Roy Spencer and Andrew Montford, two prominent skeptics, both claim that their arguments place them within the 97 percent definition.
Lord Christopher Monckton reviewed the Cook paper and noted that the authors looked at 11,944 studies and eliminated 7,930 for failing to conclude either for or against the human caused position. Just 64, or 1.6 percent of the 4,014 remaining papers endorsed the “scientific consensus.”
Further examination by Legates et al. (2013) showed that only 41 of the 64 abstracts, or 1 percent of 4,014 abstracts, expressed an opinion on whether humans caused warming. Just 0.3 percent of the original 11,944 abstracts were true believers leaving 99.7 percent of the studies – we might call that a consensus – who did not conclude “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
That brings us to the question that cannot be ignored: Should scientists seek consensus or truth?
[sharequote align="center"]That brings us to the question that cannot be ignored: Should scientists seek consensus or truth?[/sharequote]
There was a scientific consensus regarding the earth being flat rather than round. (The consensus followers were the real Flat Earthers.) The consensus “knew” that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo paid a price for proving that wrong. Sir Issac Newton’s consensus on gravity thrived for 250 years before Albert Einstein had the temerity to question it, which earned him ridicule from a world-wide scientific community – and everlasting fame.
Consensus is a term for politicians not scientists. The debate over what governments should do to mitigate God’s climate is a political debate seeking funding – currently about a billion dollars a day – to prove the conclusion.
In this Dec. 6, 2007, file photo, Oxfam activists wearing polar bear costumes stage a demonstration outside the venue of the U.N. climate change conference in Nusa Dua, Bali island, Indonesia. If you think of climate change as a hazard faced by some far-off polar bear decades from now, you�re mistaken. That�s the message from top climate scientists gathering in Japan this week to assess the impact of global warming. "The polar bear is us," says Patricia Romero Lankao of the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. (AP/Dita Alangkara, File)
Indeed, it is all about money. IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said it best; “…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…”
It is a cliché to say that Global Warming zealotry has become a religion. It is not. Religion implies a faith in a power greater than one’s self. Global Warming is a superstition. And a very expensive one.
If the president is unwilling to start with a small garden, perhaps he could begin by providing a gentle rain for the Central Valley in California.
John Linder served in Congress for 18 years from Georgia. He and his wife, Lynne, have retired to a farm in Northeast Mississippi. He can be contacted at: email@example.com
Feature Photo: (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.