Give us the money

An insightful email from a British reader below:

After forty years of listening to greenie scare stories, (even believing some of them at one time) I think I am starting to see a pattern emerging. It seems to start as:

Plan A: The Scam

We have identified an ecological disaster and HUMANS ARE TO BLAME. But if you pay us lots of money and do exactly what we say, we may be able to fix it in time.

For some inexplicable reason, this does not convince everyone, so we need:

Plan B: The Precautionary Principle

Well, even if we're wrong, you still ought to pay us lots of money and do exactly what we say.

For some inexplicable reason, this also does not convince everyone, so we need:

Plan C: The Tipping Point

OK. So nothing is happening and there isn't any evidence, but there will be soon if you don't PAY US THE MONEY!

This method seems to be a limp-wristed version of that used by Ronnie and Reggie in the East End of London many years ago, and was known then as extortion, or, "demanding money with menaces." (but now it is called "environmentalism." I suppose at least we have a longer word.) Although the Kray's methods seem to have been:

a. less verbose

b. arguably more cost-effective, and

c. they had the balls to do their own dirty work.

The greenie extortionists, having failed at plan C, exhort the legal authorities to silence the dissenters. And if that doesn't work they incite young, idealistic and naive people into acquiring a criminal record on their behalf. Maybe we should just say "BOO" to the greenies for a change. Being polite only lets them get away with it.






Science's Ordinary Magisterium

"Scientists have found two large leaks in Earth's magnetosphere, the region around our planet that shields us from severe solar storms," Space.com reports:

The leaks are defying many of scientists' previous ideas on how the interaction between Earth's magnetosphere and solar wind occurs: The leaks are in an unexpected location, let in solar particles in faster than expected and the whole interaction works in a manner that is completely the opposite of what scientists had thought.

Laymen may be confused by the notion of a scientific discovery "that is completely the opposite of what scientists had thought." After all, we keep reading that all scientists agree about global warming and no one may question it. Is science infallible or isn't it?

The answer is: It depends. Scientific teachings that are part of the "ordinary magisterium," such as those involving the interaction between Earth's magnetosphere and solar wind, are not infallible. But global warming is what scientists call an ex cathedra doctrine.

Source

The mocking post by Taranto above is comparing Warmism to Catholicism. Catholics believe in the magisterium of the Pope, which includes the claim that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals





Flawed Science Advice for Obama?

Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports from DotEarth and ScienceInsider that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor on Saturday.

Dr. Holdren, now a physicist at Harvard, was one of the experts in natural resources whom Paul Ehrlich enlisted in his famous bet against the economist Julian Simon during20the "energy crisis of the 1980s. Dr. Simon, who disagreed with environmentalists' predictions of a new "age of scarcity" of natural resources, offered to bet that any natural resource would be cheaper at any date in the future. Dr. Ehrlich accepted the challenge and asked Dr. Holdren, then the co-director of the graduate program in energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, and another Berkeley professor, John Harte, for help in choosing which resources would become scarce.

In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals - chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten - and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990.

Now, you could argue that anyone's entitled to a mistake, and that mistakes can be valuable if people learn to become open to ideas that conflict with their preconceptions and ideology. That could be a useful skill in an advisor who's supposed to be presenting the president with a wide range of views. Someone who'd seen how wrong environmentalists had been in ridiculing Dr. Simon's predictions could, in theory, become more open to dissenting from today's environmentalist orthodoxy. But I haven't seen much evidence of such open-mindedness in Dr. Holdren.

Consider what happened when a successor to Dr. Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, published "The Skeptical Environmentalist" in 2001. Dr. Holdren joined in an an extraordinary attack on the book in Scientific American - an attack that I thought did far more harm to the magazine's reputation than to Dr. Lomborg's. The Economist called the critique "strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance"; Dr. Lomborg's defenders said the critics made more mistakes in 11 pages than they were able to find in his 540-page book. (You can read Dr. Lomborg's rebuttal here.) In an earlier post, I wrote about Dr. Holdren's critique of the chapter on energy, in which Dr. Lomborg reviewed the history of energy scares and predicted there would not be dire shortages in the future:

Dr. Holdren began his critique by complaining that Dr. Lomborg was "asking the wrong question" because environmentalists had known for decades that there was no danger of energy being in short supply. This struck me as an odd bit of revisionist history, given both the "energy crisis" rhetoric of the 1970s and Dr. Holdren's own bet that resources would become more scarce. Then, in the rest of the critique, Dr. Holdren faulted Dr. Lomborg for not paying enough attention to the reasons that there could be future problems with energy supplies.

Dr. Holdren's resistance to dissenting views was also on display earlier this year in an article asserting that climate skeptics are "dangerous." (You can read about the response to that article at DotEarth.)

Dr. Holdren is certainly entitled to his views, but what concerns me is his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions. Even if most climate scientists agree on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, that doesn't imply that the best way to deal with the problem is through drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions. There are other ways to cope, and there's no "scientific consensus" on which path looks best.

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and the author of "The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics," discussed Dr. Holdren's conflation of science and politics in a post on the Prometheus blog:

The notion that science tells us what to do leads Holdren to appeal to authority to suggest that not only are his scientific views correct, but because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views.

At the Reason Hit & Run blog, Ronald Bailey reviews some of Dr. Holdren's work and notes that in a 1995 essay, he and his coauthors (Gretchen C. Daily and Dr. Ehrlich) "acknowledge ecological ignorance about the principles of economics, but don't express any urgency in learning about them."

At OpenMarket.org, the Competitive Enterprise Institute blog, Chris Horner criticizes the reported Holdren appointment and suggests that Dr. Holdren got in to the National Academy of Sciences through a "back door." What kind of White House science advisor you think Dr. Holdren would make?

Source








A Glimpse Inside the Global Warming Controversy: Why You Need to Consider Both Sides

By Dr. William DiPuccio, a retired weather forecaster in the US Navy and former Meteorological Technician for the National Weather Service

"Do you believe in Global Warming?" I have often been asked this question by people with little or no scientific background. It seems like a simple question that demands a "yes" or "no" answer. But in reality it is a complex question that cannot be reduced to an unqualified "yea" or "nay". The intent of this paper is not to resolve this question by rallying evidence for or against Global Warming (as if that can be done in a few pages!), but rather to lay bare the complexity of the climate change issue. Those who come to appreciate this fact will likely agree that simple answers are not only bad education, but can lead to bad policies.

The controversy surrounding global warming is not centered so much on the increase in global temperature over the last 150 years, but on the primary cause of this increase-natural, human, or a combination of the two. The theory in question is called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

There is actually more than one AGW theory, and they vary considerably as to the causes and extent of human induced climate change. The most prevalent model is based on projections from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is this version of the AGW hypothesis that has become the focus of so much controversy.

According the IPCC model, solar radiation that is absorbed by the earth's surface is reradiated and absorbed by atmospheric CO2 (and other trace greenhouse gases). This produces a slight warming in the troposphere which sets into motion a chain of events that will cause global temperature to rise by 2-6 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Such an increase could have disastrous regional and even global effects (extreme heat, glacial melt, sea level rises, droughts, floods, powerful storms, etc.). In order to mitigate this potential danger, the emission of CO2 by industry and consumers must be vastly reduced by limiting the use of fossil fuels and/or sequestering CO2.

The IPCC's AGW hypothesis has not gone unchallenged in scientific journals. There are at least eight major issues where the data and/or the conclusions are being disputed in the scientific community with increasing frequency:

1. Reconstructing the Past: One of the challenges of climate science is to understand the causes of past climate change in order to isolate the fingerprint of CO2 warming. To do this, we must construct a reliable record of historical temperatures prior to the extensive use of fossil fuels. Since instrumental measurements were not widespread until c. 1850, climate scientists must use "proxies", such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals, to determine temperature. Unfortunately, proxies are not always precise. Some do not show a linear response to temperature change and many are sensitive to other factors in the environment (e.g., rainfall) which can lead to interpretive errors. Major disagreements surround the reconstruction of the medieval warm period, including the assertion by some scientists that recent temperatures are the highest they have been in thousands of years (the so-called "hockey stick" controversy).

It may come as a surprise to some that even the instrumental temperature record of the last 150 years is skewed. Though showing a general upward trend, part of the recorded increase in land based temperatures may be more apparent than real-caused by poor siting of climate stations and the growth of cities ("urban heat islands"). Adjusting the raw data to compensate for these artifacts is not an exact science, as shown by the differences in land based global temperature reported each month by the major data centers.

Since 1979, the use of satellite data has provided a more reliable and accurate determination of global temperatures. Unlike land based instruments, satellite temperatures include data from the worlds oceans as well as from remote areas that were previously inaccessible. But at least two more decades of satellite data are needed to establish long term climate trends.

2. Climate Sensitivity: Most scientists agree that if CO2 is doubled by the end of the century, it can only account for a .3 to 1.2 degree C rise in temperature, acting alone. The rest depends on whether the climate amplifies (+ feedback) or diminishes (- feedback) this forcing. Therein lies the real dispute and that's where the hypothesis starts to run thin. Climate sensitivity is based on many complex interactions that are not fully understood. A number of these interactions are discussed in the paragraphs which follow.

3. Water Vapor: This is actually the largest greenhouse gas by far, and will ultimately determine whether the atmosphere amplifies or diminishes CO2 radiative forcing. Unfortunately, it is also one of the least understood components. The extent, type, opacity, and height of cloud cover that develops in response to CO2 forcing can make or break the IPCC's AGW hypothesis (e.g., a 1% error in cloud cover equals 5 million square kilometers of clouds over the earth's surface). Some clouds enhance warming by trapping heat, others prevent warming by blocking sunshine. There are no physical equations for predicting this as of yet.

As research scientist Roy Spencer has pointed out, there are still open questions about cause and effect. According to the IPCC, changes in cloud cover will amplify CO2 radiative forcing (+ feedback). But there are many other factors, unrelated to CO2 forcing, which can influence cloud formation (e.g., ocean temperature fluctuations). It may be that these unrelated changes in cloud cover are actually a primary cause of warming and not an effect of CO2 forcing. By erroneously attributing changes in cloud cover to CO2 forcing, the climate system will appear more sensitive than it really is. More research is needed to untangle this problem.

4. The Oceans: Our understanding of the ocean-climate connection is still emerging. Studies have intensified, thanks in part to this controversy. We now know that oceans undergo decadal and multi-decadal oscillations due to salinity and temperature gradients (and, perhaps, solar and gravitational cycles). There is a high degree of correlation between these oscillations and global temperature. According to climate specialist Joseph D'Aleo, this correlation has been known for years, but it is largely ignored by IPCC climate models.

Since water has a much higher specific heat than air (4x), some scientists suggest that global temperature cannot be measured by surface stations alone, but must include the enormous heat capacity of the oceans. Recent cooling in the upper layers of the ocean (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) implies a loss of heat in the climate system rather an increase. Computer climate models have not yet caught up to this science. In the end we may discover that the oceans, not CO2, are the real climate drivers.

5. The Role of CO2: IPCC climate models assume that an increase in CO2 will be followed by a rise in global temperature. This assumption is based on a well known physical constant: the absorption of energy at different wavelengths by CO2. But the cause and effect relationship of CO2 to the climate system may not be that simple. The IPCC acknowledges that, based on ice core samples over the past 420,000 years, CO2 increases followed temperature increases by centuries (other paleoclimate studies have confirmed this relationship elsewhere). As the oceans (and soil) warm, CO2 escapes (outgassing) much like the gas escaping from soda pop left on the kitchen counter. This may explain why fluctuations in CO2 levels occurred even prior to the industrial era.

The current increase in average global temperature since the mid nineteenth century began decades before CO2 levels started to rise dramatically due to industrialization (around 1940). During the twentieth century, global temperatures fell from the 1940's to the 1970's, as CO2 continued to rise. Some scientists speculate that this negative correlation to temperature may have been caused by sulfur emissions (sulfur crystals reflect sunlight). But it may also suggest that the relationship of CO2 to climate change is more complex than climate modelers assume. Temperatures have been flat, even slightly down, over the last decade as CO2 levels continue to rise.

Finally, there are disagreements surrounding the residence time of CO2-i.e., how long it remains in the atmosphere before being absorbed. Does it continue to accumulate for centuries as some scientists contend, or is it absorbed more rapidly by "sinks" such as vegetation (which thrive on increased CO2 levels) and oceans as suggested by some data?

6. The Sun: Temperatures have been slowly rising since the end of the Little Ice Age which ran from ~1600 to ~1850. This cold period was marked by a quiet sun with very low sunspot counts (Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum). A number of solar scientists believe that even slight fluctuations in the sun's irradiance can precipitate significant climate changes even though the mechanisms involved are not well understood. Attempts to correlate solar irradiance to climate change are being proposed and tested at different levels, including its influence on the ozone layer and the possible role of cosmic rays in cloud nucleation (CERN's CLOUD Project).

The IPCC has thus far rejected the use of solar correlation because the physics are not well understood. But, do you have to understand the complexities of atmospheric pressure in order to use a barometer? There is no doubt that solar fluctuations have played a role in past climate changes and will continue to do so. Some solar scientists are now suggesting that the sun may be entering another minimum which could bring about a protracted stagnation or decrease in global temperatures.

7. Falsifiability: Skeptics of the IPCC's AGW hypothesis claim that proponents of the theory have failed to adequately separate natural and manmade climate signals. Consequently global warming is cited as a cause for phenomena that may lie within the envelope of natural variability (e.g., glacial melt, hurricanes, even heavy snows!, etc.). What changes in climate would falsify the IPCC's AGW theory? Do we have to wait until the end of the century? All climate scientists agree that the recent flattening and decline in global temperature over the last decade is due to natural variability. Though this decline was not anticipated by climate models, IPCC supporters are confident that warming will resume in the next decade or so.

But, as climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. has observed, it seems that no matter what changes take place in weather or climate-i.e., extreme heat or extreme cold-they are said to verify the IPCC's hypothesis. Consequently there can be no falsifying evidence against it, at least not on a decadal scale. Scientists like Pielke (who believes that humans are altering climate, but not primarily through CO2) are asking for specific, quantitative criteria that will allow us to prove or falsify the theory on a decadal scale rather than pushing this question into the indefinite future. Part of the urgency stems from the influence the IPCC is having on public policy. Policymakers need reliable information, especially when billions of dollars are at stake.

8. Computer Modeling: There are two basic modeling systems for climate prediction: Dynamical and Statistical. The latter bases predictions on long-term statistical trends and historical analogs (i.e., pattern repetition). The former calculates atmospheric parameters at different grid points around the globe using physical equations. Essentially it is a 3D mathematical model of the atmosphere. Some models use a combination of these methods. IPCC projections of global warming are based almost entirely on dynamical modeling.

The main dispute centers on the shortcomings of these dynamical models. AGW is so complex-intertwining ocean and land temperatures, ocean currents and oscillations, changes in the cryosphere, biosphere, solar irradiance, aerosols, cloud formation, CO2 levels, etc.-that some statisticians and climate scientists believe the level of confidence with which the IPCC puts forth its projections (90-95%) are entirely unjustified. There are no physical equations for some of the key parameters (e.g., extent and type cloud formation) and the models do not take into account oceanic and solar oscillations (though this is being improved). Indeed, many aspects of climate sensitivity are not derived as an output from the model's physical equations. Rather, they are an input by the modelers and represent their best guess (parameterization). The model's projections, then, will reflect the bias of the modeler (typically tilted toward higher sensitivity). Though computer modeling appears promising at first glance, the skill of such models in projecting global and regional climate over decades may be worthless, if not misleading.

Some critics of the dynamical modeling approach also point out that in operational meteorology, dynamic models (used by the National Weather Service to make our daily forecasts) break down in less than 10 days even though they are "initialized" using thousands of current observations at every level of the atmosphere. As Edward Lorenz (1963) and F. Giorgi (2005) concluded regarding complex, non-linear systems, it is not possible to reliably model even simple parameters over a long period of time, in an open, chaotic system like the atmosphere.

Finally, there is the larger methodological question about the way computer models are used in climate science. The notion, held by some climate scientists, that computer simulations can test the validity of a hypothesis is not scientifically sound. The computer simulation IS the hypothesis, and it must be validated against real world data. Without adequate data input, the use of such models constitutes circular reasoning.

Conclusions

Many proponents of the IPCC's AGW hypothesis consider the evidence for their theory incontrovertible and view it as "settled science." They reject all skepticism as mere denial, and appeal to the consensus of the climate science community against the "deniers." There are, of course, crackpots on both sides of the issue who receive frequent attention from the media. However, the "skeptics" are by no means without credentials. They are former NASA scientists, university professors, physicists, climatologists, and National Academy of Science researchers, who are highly respected in their fields.

The media coverage of this issue might lead one to believe that the debate is over. But, papers and articles continue to be published by recognized scientists and authors like Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr., Richard Lindzen, Douglas Hoyt, William Cotton, Robert Carter, and Willie Soon. These scientists maintain that (1) many of the projections put forth by the IPCC lack adequate scientific support; (2) too much emphasis has been placed upon the role of CO2; (3) the level of confidence in computer modeling is misplaced; and (4) the IPCC has overemphasized the anthropogenic contribution to climate change by underrating natural fluctuations in climate, some of which are not yet fully understood.

Scientists who disagree with the IPCC's science do not necessarily rule out an anthropogenic contribution to climate change. What they do oppose, however, is reducing a complex problem like climate change to one primary forcing agent, namely, CO2. According to the National Academy of Science, other types of human activity such as land use changes (e.g., deforestation, urbanization) and aerosol pollution (e.g., soot, sulfur, etc.) may contribute significantly to human induced climate change, especially on a regional basis. The IPCC has largely ignored these factors. There is a wide range of opinions on the long distance effects of such regional forcings (teleconnections), and how much overall impact they have on global climate. Much more data would be needed in order to answer these questions. Nevertheless, these types of human activity demand very different intervention strategies than we are pursuing at present, with the reduction and sequestration of CO2 emissions.

In my view, the IPCC's AGW hypothesis provides a foundation upon which a more complex model of climate change can be built. In the meantime, we should be cautious about placing our faith in climate models that vastly oversimplify the actual climate system. Supporting evidence for the IPCC's projections does not warrant the high level (90%-95%) of confidence exhibited by its authors. Much less should these projections be used, at this point, for making public policy decisions. Though the latest IPCC report (2007) concludes that global warming, due to increased CO2, is a virtual certainty, the authors themselves raise fundamental doubts about our scientific understanding of radiative forcing agents and climate change, both past and present.

Why this confidence, then, in the IPCC's AGW hypothesis? Just as many IPCC defenders accuse skeptics of receiving funding from big oil, so skeptics assert that the rush to go public was driven by scientists and administrators who are either committed to environmentalist ideologies or have direct ties to environmental groups. Consequently, the power of the IPCC's projections to influence public policy has, in turn, energized and funded environmentalism. This funding includes large government and corporate grants on AGW research, and enormous spending on the reduction of carbon emissions.

Regardless of motives or incentives on either side, it is clear that crucial aspects of the anthropogenic global warming theory are still in a state of flux. Someone sounded the alarm too soon and policy has outrun scientific certitude. Those who question the IPCC hypothesis may be in a minority (albeit a growing minority), but science is not a democracy. Controversies are settled by facts, not by votes. As the history of science has shown, the majority are not always right.

In the mean time, the media will continue to hype this issue, focusing on the most sensational statements and events. Apocalyptic views, like those of Al Gore and James Hansen (NASA), have dominated the public discussion and classroom education. Yet, these views do not even represent the IPCC's projections, which are far more conservative and a lot less theatrical. Of course, alternate models of climate change are not even considered. This one sidedness only proves how desperately good education is needed on this issue.

Source







CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads - how can there be global warming with this unusual winter weather? CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn't impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN's Dec. 18 "Lou Dobbs Tonight" that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming. "You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant," Myers said. "Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big - I think we're going to die from a lack of fresh water or we're going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure."

Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span. "But this is like, you know you said - in your career - my career has been 22 years long," Myers said. "That's a good career in TV, but talking about climate - it's like having a car for three days and saying, `This is a great car.' Well, yeah - it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won't be so good. And that's what we're doing here." "We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world's been around," Myers continued.

Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told "Lou Dobbs Tonight" viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century: "If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind," Lehr said. "If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We've been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we're back into a cooling cycle."

Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle - a result of nature, not man. "The last 10 years have been quite cool," Lehr continued. "And right now, I think we're going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man." Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of20The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.

Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore's 2006 movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," had some inaccuracies. "There are definitely some inaccuracies," Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN's "American Morning." "The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming."

Marciano also said that, "global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we've seen," pointing out th at "by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase." His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying "the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it."

Source






The Cap and Trade Fraud

The buying, selling, and trading of carbon credits will not remove one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere.

The big buzz in the political world is "cap and trade." What is cap and trade and where did this idea come from? The cap and trade concept came from the UN's Kyoto Protocols. Cap and trade is based on the flawed premise that anthropogenic activities (humans) are causing global warming by increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The American Physical Society (APS), which represents nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its previous position on climate change. APS editor Jeffrey Marque said, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the ICCP (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." The UN IPCC computer modeling contains numerous exaggerations and extensive errors which led to the global warming hoax.

Virtually all human activities (work and play) result in the release of CO2. A cap and trade scheme would limit the release of CO2 that countries, corporations, and individuals could emit. Those that exceed this arbitrary carbon cap would be required to buy or trade a carbon credit from a country, corporation or individual that did not exceed the arbitrary cap. A carbon credit is a permit that allows a country, corporation, or an individual to emit a specified amount of carbon dioxide. These credits are bought and sold on carbon trading markets just like stocks. Contrary to stocks that have an actual value, the value of carbon credits is artificially created by governments for the sole purpose of generating income from a commodity that has no actual value. In a free market economy no one in their right mind would pay good money for a commodity that has no value without government coercion.

The buying, selling, and trading of carbon credits will not remove one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere. But, the purpose is not to eliminate CO2, it is to generate income for the government, redistribute wealth, and control the people. Yet Obama said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it - whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

According to the Congressional Budget Office this new energy tax will cost businesses and individuals trillions of dollars. In addition, legislative analysts have predicted that millions of jobs will be lost if legislation implementing the cap and trade proposal is passed. Once these schemes are allowed, the government will be able to regulate and control all carbon emissions. This will give the government complete control over travel, lifestyle and whatever businesses and citizens consume and produce. This is the change Obama desires.

Cap and trade advocates chose the Hegelian Dialectic to sell this draconian plan. Georg Hegel's theory of the dialectic was used by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels to sell their economic theory of Communism. The Hegelian Dialectic is used to guide thoughts and actions that lead to a predetermined solution. Here is how it's done:

First, create a problem of monumental proportions.

Second, stir up hysteria by every means possible.

Third, when people hysterically demand a solution to the contrived problem, offer predetermined solutions that will take away rights, cost considerable money, and put more power in the hands of the power-grabbing bureaucrats.

Global warming zealots are using the Hegelian Dialectic to push their environmental agenda to the detriment of the American people. People are being brainwashed into believing the planet is being threatened by global warming. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi even claims that she was elected to "save the planet." Al Gore, the self-appointed high priest of global warming, lectures everyone to reduce their energy consumption. But don't be fooled. Neither Peolsi nor Gore walks the walk. Both are multi-millionaires who live in energy-gobbling mansions.

These elitist Liberals want to re-create a serf/royalty society, with liberals representing the royalty class. You will know when this global warming hype is for real when Gore, Pelosi, and their ilk give up the amenities of the "rich and famous" and live in 1,600 sq. ft. houses, fly coach, and use mass transit. Until then, their hot air is the cause of global warming. Every aspect of your life will be adversely affected if our politicians are allowed to implement any of these fraudulent cap and trade schemes.

Source

***************************************

For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

*****************************************