Leaked OMB CO2 memo: “no demonstrated direct health effects”

US-CO2-emissions

All is not well in CO2 regulation land. You may have heard about a leaked memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that questions the EPA findings on CO2 being a “threat to human health”. BTW there is still time to lodge your comments (as is your right as a US citizen) on this finding, details here.

The leaked internal memo, was  marked “Attorney Client Privilege”.

It has some strong language about the negative impact EPA regulation of CO2 would have on the U.S. economy.

“Making the decision to regulate CO2…is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities,”

But there is more than that.  The Hill (a political blog) say the memo indicates that the burden of proof of CO2 as harmful isn’t there:  (emphasis mine)

An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.

The memo has no listed author but is marked “Deliberative–Attorney Client Privilege.” A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a “conglomeration of counsel we’ve received from various agencies” about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.

In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.

But here is the real kicker.

There’s language in the memo that says there may be beneficial effects to increased CO2 rather than negative effects, and that man, as always, can quickly adapt:

“To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages,” the memo reads. “The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.] … It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons,” the authors note.

According to The Hill:

At a Senate hearing [yesterday], Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) grilled EPA administrator Lisa Jackson about the memo.

“This is a smoking gun,” Barrasso said, accusing the EPA of making the finding for political reasons.

Jackson responded that the finding was based on science and was in no way politicized.

No, never.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon dioxide, Economy-health, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

185 Responses to Leaked OMB CO2 memo: “no demonstrated direct health effects”

  1. Jon H. says:

    I know… we can all turn off our Air Conditioning, starting with Congress and the White House.

  2. Scott B says:

    Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way.

  3. Ron de Haan says:

    Right, the memo should do the job and bring some sense into the minds of the EPA Officials. Unfortunately, the Lady in charge was hand picked by Obama for one purpose only. Regulate CO2 Emissions at any price.

    Hopefully Cap & Trade does not make it and the fight returns into to courts.

  4. hunter says:

    Will we dodge the bullet of AGW-inspired misregulation and abuse by the EPA?

  5. Indiana Bones says:

    Not just a “smoking gun” but a clear indication that the Administration is wildly torn on this subject. White House Council is generating memos that will demonstrate prior knowledge that CO2 is NOT a toxic substance and there is no foundation scientific or medical to show that it is.

    The writing is on the wall. Now, it would be good for ALL other participatory agencies to study the OMB memo and start making plans to withdraw from the entire AGW program. When your own internal investigation tells you you are blowing smoke where there is no smoke – it’s time to execute the exit plan.

    Finally, we can put this foolhardy, wrong-headed game plan to make CO2 a demon – in the trash bin. With the real toxic stuff, like SO4, CO and the Piltdown Man.

    Thank you OMB, steadfast skeptics, and good scientists the world over. You have won the day!

  6. rbateman says:

    Pay attention to that Sector Emissions graph.
    Only Residential must bear the burden of reducing emissions. All others get cap & trade allowances. That is how we can continue to transport as much goods as possible halfway across the globe: To support global trade, which is good for Earth business.

  7. John Galt says:

    It’s never been about health, the environment, endangered species or saving the planet. Those issues are just a facade to hide the underlying political objectives — expand government, collect more taxes and regulate how we live.

  8. Joe Black says:

    ” Scott B (09:01:28) :

    Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way.”

    Patently false.

    One would have to claim that increased CO2 is extremely beneficial to be just as “deluded” as the AGW alamists.

  9. David Jay says:

    Scott:

    That is true that there is not enough information to assert that warming will result in NET benefit, but there are clearly localized benefits to warming, just as there are localized benefits to cooling.

  10. Mike Bryant says:

    It seems odd to me that CO2 output is broken down into transportation, industrial, commercial and residential, since the only one of the four categories footing the bill is the last one, residential. Every person in every category lives in a residence. I think this is another way of trying to divide Americans. Why must it always be “us” against “them”?
    If you live here in the United States of America, and you are gainfully employed, you will pay every cost associated with all the sectors outlined above. Don’t fall for the rhetoric. When they say that they will not go after small business or residential, they are plainly lying. Any costs added by the government, whether they call it “cap and trade”, “carbon tax” or “raid and pillage” will be paid by those who actually work for a living. If you do not understand this simple truth, you are either very young or hopelessly naive. It’s time to stop bailing out the banks, the unions the feds and Acorn. I think I’ll take a four year vacation, get a bike and turn the utilities off. Let’s see how they raise taxes from zero activity and zero income.

  11. Owen Hughes says:

    Hunter (9:05:13): I doubt we’ll dodge it. Obama is intent upon getting at least the start of a regulatory structure in place, over as many aspects of our economic lives as possible. As noted by Ron de Haan (9:01:39) his appointees were not chosen for their principles or their knowledge, but because they are obedient hacks and zealots. They know what will befall them if they fail. They also know that, if they toe the line, they can expect to be protected against criticism (see: tax cheat Treasury Secretary, others), and that a variety of illegal or unsavory tools will be used to help them ram through the agenda (see: Chrysler, GM, banks). That agenda is all about control, seized urgently. Obama knows he has a limited window during which his “shock and awe” campaign is most likely to succeed. He will use that window, facts, science and law be damned.

  12. rbateman says:

    What science? Where is the science that says that C02 is toxic? Lingering health effects such as Carbon Monoxide poisoning? I have never seen any. Present levels are nowhere near being able to replace Oxygen in the air to the point where nobody can breathe normally.
    Not even on a factor of 10.
    Ms. Jackson refers to scientific documents. What documents are those?
    OSHA & MSHA have PEL’s for C02. You have to be in a confined space with motors running to get anywhere near those limits. Really confined.
    Of course, if one is stupid enough to sit in one’s car in the garage with the door shut and the motor running, one will perish of CO poisoning long before CO2 will replace the oxygen in the air. Which is why they have scrubbers on diesels and fans to ventilate.
    But science proving systemic toxicity from CO2?
    Never seen anything but mention of memos and bozos sitting on benches fed smoking gun memos.

  13. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Scott B (09:01:28) :

    Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way. “””

    That’s simply not true Scott. There are too many green house operations growing crops in an elevated CO2 environment to claim that we have no proof that enhanced CO2 can be beneficial.

    And I have seen reports that say that 20% of the present world total food production can only be explained by taking account of the 37.5% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age.

    So which 1.2 billion of the world people would you condemn to startvation by returning the CO2 to 280 ppm ?

  14. Indiana Bones says:

    Scott B (09:01:28) :

    “Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way.”

    Scott, please meet the Idsos at CO2 Science: http://www.co2science.org/

    And the facts:

    http://tinyurl.com/p9bbox

    http://tinyurl.com/c23hf9

    http://tinyurl.com/qu2rp2

    There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies affirming the enhanced growth of plant life in enriched CO2 environments. The truth is the CO2 is more of a boon to mankind than a burden. The real, toxic emissions from fossil fuels need and ARE regulated now.

  15. Paddy says:

    I am unaware of any research dealing with the level of atmospheric CO2 below which there is danger to the biosphere. Am I wrong?

    It seems that we need to know if 350 ppm +/- of CO2 is detrimental. I do know of considerable research that indicates higher CO2 levels are beneficial.

    Before policy makers consider massively costly actions that will reduce the CO2 concentration below the current amount, they need to know the consequences of their initiatives.

  16. George E. Smith says:

    “”” David Jay (09:19:31) :

    Scott:

    That is true that there is not enough information to assert that warming will result in NET benefit, but there are clearly localized benefits to warming, just as there are localized benefits to cooling. “””

    Once again David; a wrong conclusion. For a start there isn’t any credible evidence that increased CO2 has caused ANY warming; so if you want to argue the benefits of warming versus cooling, do so, but don’t hang it on CO2.

    And the food growth advantages of enhanced CO2 are quite clearly demonstrated in everyday greenhouse operations.

  17. UK Sceptic says:

    I guess they are going to have to come up with a new scam to fleece US taxpayers…

  18. David in Davis says:

    CO2 is an asphyxiant, not a toxin, i.e., as long as the air or gas mixture contains sufficient oxygen you will not die or be harmed if you breath it.
    CO2 can be and has been used safely as an anesthetic – again, as long as sufficient oxygen is present. Pure oxygen on the other hand is toxic to alveolar epithelial cells if breathed for several hours, i.e., a small fraction of CO2 or inert gas must be present in the gas mixture to prevent damage from oxygen.
    Should we regulate atmospheric oxygen? Put a limit on how much oxygen that trees can produce?

  19. John Boy says:

    Hold your breath and discover the effects of CO2.

    The Boy of John

  20. Robert Coté says:

    Oxygen in excess can be a poison; at a partial pressure greater than 1.5 bar (“surface equivalent value” = 150 percent), it may cause the rapid onset of convulsions, and after prolonged exposures at somewhat lower partial pressures it may cause pulmonary oxygen toxicity with reduced vital capacity and later pulmonary edema. – Encyclopedia Britannica

    Toxic, toxic, toxic.

  21. Joseph says:

    Those that would like to read the OMB memo in it’s entirety can do so here:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/carbon20090512.pdf

    Somebody in the OMB has a good head on their shoulders.

  22. superDBA says:

    If you think that facts will cause this administration to back out of anything, just watch how fast Pelosi is backing out of not knowing about “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”. In other words: Not at all.

    They will continue to lie and present it as fact, as long as it gets them more power and money. When they bleed the pig dry, they will blame it on anyone but themselves.

  23. Frank K. says:

    This toxic mixture of science and political advocacy is slowly destroying “climate science” – especially when you have loose cannons running around like Jim Hanson, Mark Serreze, and Heidi Cullen. And apparently the majority of the climate scientists appear to be OK with that…so long as the big research dollars continue to flow to them.

  24. David L. Hagen says:

    Somewhere I read that a minimum level of CO2 is essential for some physiological process. Can anyone provide details and a reference?

  25. UK Sceptic says:

    Unbelievable! I’m listening to the BBC News right now and they’re reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! And to prove that the ice is so thin it’s melting away there’s a lovely shot of someone pushing a thin pole through the ice mere feet away from where the ice ends in open sea.

    What a shower!

  26. Bill P says:

    Somebody in the OMB has a good head on their shoulders.

    I would say soomebody’s head (John Orszag?) may be separated from his shoulders.

    Read the retraction:

    TUE, MAY 12, 4:31 PM EST
    OMB Director Orszag Corrects the Record on the OMB & EPA

    In a post entitled “Clearing the Air”:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/OMB-Director-Orszag-Corrects-the-Record-on-the-OMB-and-EPA/

    Still, it makes one wonder if all is running smoothly in the new Camelot.

  27. Robinson says:

    In other news, A species of bream, sarpa salpa, which can trigger hallucinations when eaten, has been been discovered in British waters due to global warming.

    I don’t know whether this is good news or bad news. By the way, has the sea temperature around the British coast increased due to Global Warming or not? Does anyone know if I should cook this fish with garlic and onion, or a white sauce?

  28. Robert Wood says:

    David L. Hagen @10:22:57 if you are serious in that question?

    Then: Plants must have CO2 to live; without plants, animals die, that includes us. We put additional CO2 in greenhouses, not to warm them uyp, which it doesn’t, but to make the plants grow better. They seem to love 1000 ppm :-)

  29. Bill P says:

    Re: “John” Orszag — Make that “Peter”

  30. Sylvia says:

    Joseph (09:59:15), thank you for posting the link.

  31. RobP says:

    As many people have responded to Scott B, I won’t re-iterate, but I will just point out the “trap” he fell into was actually the same as the OMB – considering that the only impact of CO2 is on temperature/climate.

    It is precisely this kind of blinkered view of selected impacts of ubiquitous compounds that gets us into trouble. As other commentators have noted, Oxygen is actually more toxic in high concentrations than CO2 and anyone who has handles rocket fuel will know how dangerous liquid oxygen is, so why is there no push for the EPA to regulate it?

    Allowing the EPA to regulate CO2 purely from the standpoint of a presumed impact on climate has absolutely no redeeming features – it is plainly and simply stupid.

  32. Andrew P says:

    UK Sceptic (10:24:29) :

    Unbelievable! I’m listening to the BBC News right now and they’re reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! And to prove that the ice is so thin it’s melting away there’s a lovely shot of someone pushing a thin pole through the ice mere feet away from where the ice ends in open sea.
    What a shower!

    Yes, just seen the report on the web – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8048898.stm – this is probably most shameful piece of so called science reporting I have ever seen on the BBC. As a license fee payer I am disgusted at the depths the organisation has sunk to. The piece may as well have been written, filmed and edited by WWF. And it has been selected as the “Editor’s Choice”!

  33. michel says:

    Where is the emission from agriculture and food production? Its huge, but it doesn’t seem to be shown anyplace. For the UK its at least 25% of the total emissions.

  34. jtom says:

    Paddy, it has long been established that minimum levels of carbon dioxide are required to sustain the biosphere. Photosynthesis in plants stops as levels fall below 200 ppm, with the exact level dependent upon plant species. So extinction of some plant species begins 200 ppm, and the biosphere becomes unalterably affected.

    Agricultural crops significantly suffer and may fail at levels below 190 ppm. Agriculture is believe to have started 11,000 years ago, or so. Some scientists posit that before that time, the CO2 levels were too low, around 190 ppm, to make agriculture viable. Crops would only grow in limited areas and yields were low.

    Crop yields are dependent upon carbon dioxide levels, with optimum yields occurring when CO2 is about 1000 ppm. Interestingly, with increased CO2 plants will grow in areas that would otherwise be deemed unsuitable due to lack of water, poor soil, or unsuitable temperature. So not only do yields go up, but increased CO2 expands the areas in which plants can grow.

    That’s why I’m loathed to support any tinkering by man to reduce levels of CO2 already in nature, like dumping chemicals in the ocean to absorb and sequester carbon dioxide. Some experiments (like that one) are irreversible once begun, and have the potential to really play havoc with our world.

  35. chris y says:

    This is not my most optimistic comment…

    The one issue to remember here is that the EPA can fall on prior regulation practices and behavior to justify clamping down on CO2. If this comes to pass, I would expect the same regulations will be applied to water vapor eventually.

    The case for regulating CFC’s was based on an observed ozone hole in the antarctic, coupled with future scenarios of ozone depletion based on what we now know may be faulty models of ozone/CFC chemistry in the stratosphere. We didn’t understand the ozone hole then, and we still don’t understand the natural variability of the southern pole ozone hole.

    There are no direct health effects of CFC’s, which is one of the reasons CFC’s were so widely used (as well as being efficient refrigeration fluids and low in cost). The increased UV radiation in populated regions of the world due to global ozone depletion out to 2050 was projected to be very slight (the equivalent of moving 200 miles closer to the equator), and increased rates of skin cancer would likely have been undetectable. Yet the Montreal Protocol was ratified with great fanfare and self-congratulatory harrumpfing, and is hailed as the great prototype for CO2 regulation.

    The EPA banned DDT after reviewing scientific studies that demonstrated no health effects to humans, that warned of toxic effects to humans of pesticides that would substitute for DDT, and that described animal impacts (eggshell thinning, among others) that relied on dubious (later shown largely to be fabricated or poor) experimental data. Banning DDT led to a malarial genocide that everyone should be well aware of by now.

    PCB’s were banned by the EPA even though scientific studies showed no adverse effects of PCB’s in humans, even when saturated with levels of PCB’s in their fatty tissues many times higher than the limits eventually imposed by EPA. We are still paying to clean up superfund sites that are contaminated by a harmless chemical.

    The list of examples is long.

    The EPA has a glorious history of regulating harmless chemicals in the name of protecting humans, and often in the face of contrary evidence. The EPA should never be confused with being a scientific organization. It is an advocacy group for the philosophically bankrupt precautionary principle, with considerable political power.

    The only real argument I can see here is to push the cost-benefit calculation. As EPA has regulated chemicals over the decades, the cost-benefit has increased exponentially, to the point where, for some chemicals, ten’s of billions of dollars of regulatory costs are wasted per life saved.

    Sorry to be so glum.

  36. John Galt says:

    John Boy (09:47:37) :

    Hold your breath and discover the effects of CO2.

    The Boy of John

    What you will discover is the effects of a lack of oxygen. CO2 is non-toxic, but you need oxygen.

  37. anna v says:

    David L. Hagen (10:22:57) :

    Somewhere I read that a minimum level of CO2 is essential for some physiological process. Can anyone provide details and a reference?

    http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html

    “Also consider: we would die if we did not breathe in such a way as to retain very close to 65,000 ppm (6.5%) of CO2 in the alveoli (tiny air sacs) of our lungs.”

    here too

    http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2009/TWTW_Feb%2028,%202009.pdf

  38. Fred from Canuckistan . . . says:

    its not that Obama needs to regulate CO2, he needs the money he can skim off CO2 regulation. He’s desperate to get some cash in the door . . . he’ll tax anything under the guise of “saving the planet”

  39. Dana H. says:

    One of the most important benefits of CO2 emissions is that they allow us to live: Some 80% of our energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels, with no serious alternative in the foreseeable future (with the possible exception of nuclear power).

  40. Pierre Gosselin says:

    UK Skeptic,
    The BBC has become shameless and arrogant – even your Labour MPs appear to have had enough.
    You’ll love this (concerning MP expense abuse):

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/12/british-pol-destroys-bbc-hack-how-much-are-you-paid/

    Sorry it’s off topic, but it’s nice to see the shameless BBC get put in its place.

  41. Mike86 says:

    Ah, that’d be 29CFR1910.104, hazardous materials, oxygen…seriously.

    Medical grade oxygen is also a prescription drug. Section 503(b)(4) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act; 21 CFR Sections 201(b)(1) and 211.130.

    You know, instead of getting people of “wasting oxygen”, maybe they should go for “misuse of prescription drugs”.

  42. John Boy says:

    John Galt,

    Increased CO2 in the bloodstream (which results from holding one’s breath) increases PH which is sensed by chemo-receptors in the brain which stimulate breathing. We expell CO2 from our bodies because it is harmful.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0R-3X3K7FF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e1f61aa9aafe3b4b62d70fdea1be8cb6

    The link. There is an abstract.

    The Boy of John

  43. PaulHClark says:

    We have seen in the UK in the last few days that our politicians are the very definition of untrustworthy.

    In short they have been ‘fiddling their expenses’ (paid for by the tax payer) in such an egregious way that I doubt we will be able to believe anything they say for quite a while.

    It occurs to me that ‘spinning the story’ is now more important than ever before for people in power.

    The politiicans here were only caught out when someone leaked details of their expenses claims (this was despite FOIA requests which had been circumvented by the introduction of new laws).

    The fact that you folks in the US are now seeing a leaked memo uncover some facts that lawmakers would rather be kept private suggests to me that all Americans should be on guard and encourage your media to uncover the truth on this issue.

  44. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Well I hope this all gets more intense and turns into a real DEBATE.
    This is what the demented warmists are petrified of.
    They and the fraud they are peddling are beginning to get exposed.

  45. John Laidlaw says:

    Just wait for the inevitable attacks on the OSB… none of which will have anything to do with the science involved, but will simply be attempts to discredit them somehow.

  46. philincalifornia says:

    Andrew P (10:55:25) :

    UK Sceptic (10:24:29) :

    Yes, just seen the report on the web – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8048898.stm – this is probably most shameful piece of so called science reporting I have ever seen on the BBC. As a license fee payer I am disgusted at the depths the organisation has sunk to. The piece may as well have been written, filmed and edited by WWF. And it has been selected as the “Editor’s Choice”!
    ———————————-

    I expected them all to lie harder as their their bogus theories disintegrated, but this seems like an inordinate level of fraudulent reporting. Do you think the British Government is fearful of lawsuits to reclaim taxes (e.g. the airline taxes, and the Cap and Trade taxes) so it is pushing this pack of lies on all potential class action plaintiffs via it’s propaganda division, the BBC ??

    Since they do business here in the States (I’ve paid airline taxes to the British government), I wonder if our renowned class action attorneys are looking at this one too ??

  47. AKD says:

    I am surprised the Bad Cop/Good Cop routine is not more obvious to all. Of course Obama does not want the EPA to regulate CO2. Cap and Trade would provide a much more lucrative revenue stream and can be passed off as neither a tax nor a penalty.

  48. Pierre Gosselin says:

    What a lot of nonsense Jackson is talking.

  49. philincalifornia says:

    Ooops, “its” not “it’s” propaganda division

  50. timetochooseagain says:

    Holy crap. One little self plug in the comments at WUWT hockey-sticked my little blog!

    Thanks Anthony! Now ~that~ gives some perspective on the power of your blog.

  51. Pierre Gosselin says:

    PaulHClark,
    Your BBC is right there in bed with your politicians (and ours) when it comes to being untrustworthy and manipulative. They are a dispicable bunch.

    UKSkeptic presents yet another example of BBC’s shameless twisted propoganda. And Sen. Barasso presents the same with the EPA and US media.

    If we had to vote, it would be a neck and neck race as to who is more untrustworthy – the media or pols.

  52. D. King says:

    jtom (10:59:24) :

    That’s why I’m loathed to support any tinkering by man to reduce levels of CO2 already in nature, like dumping chemicals in the ocean to absorb and sequester carbon dioxide. Some experiments (like that one) are irreversible once begun, and have the potential to really play havoc with our world.

    You mean playing around with the bottom of the food chain is dangerous?
    Who could have known? Yeah jtom, I got a hoot out of that one!

  53. Methow Ken says:

    I’m shocked. . . . SHOCKED. . . . to find out that Lisa Jackson would still continue to try and claim that the EPA finding ”was based on science and was in no way politicized”. . . . right. . . .

    I fear the eco-manics in charge of the EPA asylum will happily continue down Al Gore’s yellow brick AGW road until somebody stops them. Hopefully there will be enough rational members of Congress willing to take action before the EPA drives this country hopelessly into the economic ditch.
    The simple fix I would wish for (no: I don’t expect anything quite this rational to happen):
    Congress passes a law that unequivocally and plainly states that EPA has NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to regulate CO2.

  54. Mike Bryant says:

    “michel (10:56:05) :
    Where is the emission from agriculture and food production? Its huge, but it doesn’t seem to be shown anyplace. For the UK its at least 25% of the total emissions.”

    Also, where are the emissions from government broken down department by department?

  55. John Boy says:

    timetochooseagain,

    Traffic accidents attract rubber neckers, too and they’re usually holding their breath. Bet it don’t last.

    The Boy of John

  56. Robert Kral says:

    John Boy, what exactly is your point? Too much oxygen is harmful, too much nitrogen is harmful, etc., etc. Same goes for too little, including CO2. Human physiology is designed to deal with conditions of the real world.

  57. jack mosevich says:

    Just in case it has not been posted: GISS is out for April at 44, 03 below March

    REPLY: We stopped monthly reporting on GISS. Too many errors in that dataset. – Anthony

  58. tarpon says:

    It’s a fact that real greenhouses add extra CO2 to the atmosphere inside their hothouses and produce greener and bigger plants as a result. In many cases it’s 2-3 times the atmospheric levels. Yes, I know an owner who does just this.

  59. superDBA says:

    Fred from Canuckistan . . . (11:14:32) :

    “its not that Obama needs to regulate CO2, he needs the money he can skim off CO2 regulation. He’s desperate to get some cash in the door . ”

    Actually, he’s shown no concern about how much he’s spending, or where it’s going to come from. I think he’s just looking for control over any money making entity so he can bring about “Social Justice”, and of course, green votes.

  60. LarryD says:

    CO2 doesn’t start to have noticeable effects on people until it reaches 1% (10,000 ppm) in the air. Actual toxicity doesn’t occur until concentrations reach 5% (50,000 ppm). source.

    At the same time, since CO2 level is the trigger for the breathing reflex in the medulla, and is needed to maintain PH by buffering with bicarbonate or carbonic acid, too little in the atmosphere will adversely affect people as well as plants.

  61. John G says:

    As mammals we’re completely dependent on plants for oxygen and food (not to mention shelter and clothes). Plants seem to be happiest at CO2 levels of 1000 ppm, a level to which they must have become accustomed during their evolution. They need it, but we don’t. Shouldn’t we defer to the plants on the question of the desirable level of CO2? It benefits us to keep the plants happy and it’s not as though those levels of CO2 have never been attained before. It didn’t destroythe world then, it won’t destroy the world now.

  62. Lisa Jackson said that she a) never read the document b) implied she would ignore it anyways c) because does not consider it anything but opinion

    so what hope do you hold out our submissions might break through her concensus and settled science OPINION if she dismissed OMB and has already made the determination? This woman has a rapidlly growing budget and delusions of granduer, so look out emitters unless regular people stand up and fight, I have read the EPA public comments and the against are all argument based on data points the for are all save the planet wolf hugger pleas and anti big oil rants.

    I do not think that this woman cares what the feedback shows and the public comment process is being observed as a procedural hurdle rather than an honest request for feedback. The more I look into this the more I am convinced the wheels of regulation are already in motion.

  63. Mike Strong says:

    Reply to David in Davis (09:46:59) : “CO2 is an asphyxiant, not a toxin, i.e., as long as the air or gas mixture contains sufficient oxygen you will not die or be harmed if you breath it.”

    I guessssss thas whye thiz soda i’mmmmm driiiinkin iz make…innng meee sleeeepeeee..ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

  64. Joseph says:

    Re: Bill P (10:31:02)

    It’s not so much a retraction as it is the OMB director disowning the comments as those of some other agency, and not his office. I examined the document’s properties, and it is titled “Endangerment Proposal – interagency comment”. I wonder which agency it was, they did a good job.

    I do agree with your comment that there does seem to be some dissent within the ranks.

  65. Jim Watt says:

    this all sounds too sweet!
    do i smell a fish? like in Red Herring.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(narrative)

  66. John Galt says:

    @John Boy

    So, CO2 in the atmosphere has the same effect as CO2 in the human body?

    Yes, too much CO2 in your bloodstream is harmful. It’s a waste product you need to expel from your body.

    I leaped without looking when I responded to your post. However, you inhale some CO2 with each breath. Levels up to 8% are considered safe.

  67. JimB says:

    Glad to see this got it’s own thread…I think it’s a huge story (..ok, I was actually hoping for a hat tip ;*) )

    This again makes it obvious that there is no interest in science here at all, there is purely the desire to fund somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3 of the new budget.
    My skin was crawling when I watched that vid this morning. In the YouTube comments, someone actually said that Lisa “pawned” Barrasso. Classic example of two people watching the same thing, but seeing very different things.

    JimB

  68. TonyB says:

    LarryD

    Any idea what might be considered too little co2 for either plants or humans?

    tonyb

  69. Nasif Nahle says:

    LarryD (12:22:10):

    Actual toxicity doesn’t occur until concentrations reach 5%…

    That’s 130 times higher than its current concentration. Human symptoms at concentrations of 4.4%, like increases of cardiac and respiratory frequencies, headaches and sight impairment, are due to suffocation (insufficiency of oxygen), not intoxication.

  70. Patrik says:

    I would just like to share with you all that here in Sweden, in one of the largest news TV-shows tonight, two (2) AGW-non believers got to speak. One of them was Roy Spencer who was interviewed for about a minute (I think), the other one was Lars Bern of Sweden who got to debate the leader of Swedens society for preservation of the nature, Svante Axelsson.
    The debate went on for some minutes and was really well moderated by the host of the news show.
    Lars Bern made a really good impression while Svante seemed very nervous and agitated.
    This is not common in Sweden. 99% of all you hear in the media about AGW is totally Goreific. :)

  71. ew-3 says:

    slightly off track –

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/du-cwo051309.php

    Cold water ocean circulation doesn’t work as expected

    Money quote:
    “We know that a good fraction of the human caused carbon dioxide released since the Industrial revolution is now in the deep North Atlantic”

    If so, how can human caused carbon dioxide be causing warming?
    Does the IPCC concur with this?

  72. Mike T says:

    UK Sceptic (10:24:29) :
    Unbelievable! I’m listening to the BBC News right now and they’re reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! And to prove that the ice is so thin it’s melting away there’s a lovely shot of someone pushing a thin pole through the ice mere feet away from where the ice ends in open sea.
    ——–
    Don’t just blow your top, go to BBC complaints – and complain! I will. I still have a more general complaint about bias in climate reporting in the works, currently awaiting consideration by the BBC Trust. I’m not expecting much, but one can only do what one can do – just wish it was more.

  73. William says:

    “Global Warming Inadvertently Curbed In Past By Lead Pollution, Scientists Find”

    So man is causing AGW while we were accidentally stopping AGW?

    I guess the EPA will have to bring back leaded gasoline to stop global warming. Which is more harmful? I would say the lead causing limited brain function allowing the CO2 “debate” to go this far.

  74. beatk says:

    Why do greenhouses elevate CO2 levels to about 1000ppm?
    Because most plants grow better and faster and need less water, are more resilient.
    Why do most plants grow better in a 1000ppm environment than at the current 380ppm outside of greenhouses?
    Possibly because the average CO2 level over the past 100 million years was about 1000ppm (it was a lot higher 500 million years ago), thus plants might have adapted to that level during their more recent evolution.

  75. Bill P says:

    The idea that somehow this 9-page paper “incriminates” the OMB / Obama wrt their Green credentials is, I fear, sadly mistaken.

    Orszag has already disavowed authorship, and its significance is clearly overblown. Here is his own disclaimer from his blog, which appeared last night.

    Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded.

    The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.

    Barrasso, who calls the purloined memo a “smoking gun” can wave the papers around all he likes. Unless someone can find a bureaucrat who says, “Yep, I wrote that, and that’s what I believe,” there isn’t much to argue about, and the video reflects this non-event. Was Barrassos ready for a smart reply? Or any reply at all? He doesn’t look like it.

  76. Missed Gear says:

    Love it. The internal memo over questionable co2 hazards and politically driven regulations should open the door to more questions on “climate change” and political agendas.

  77. Bill Wirtanen says:

    Scott B (09:01:28) :

    “Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger.”

    Please google “photosynthesis” and you will learn something,

    Cheers, Bill W

  78. Mark says:

    “We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no
    higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 times current atmospheric levels.”

    Source:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

  79. Rejecting CO2 because it is the offspring of black CARBON and white OXYGEN is outrageously racist.

  80. John Galt says:

    @ Bill P (13:20:08) :

    Unfortunately, your analysis is spot on. This memo does not reflect the official policy of the EPA or the Obama administration. It is already being poo-pooed by the EPA and the media.

    We’ve seen what happens to people who stand up against AGW, particularly people who work for the government. I hope whoever wrote this is eligible for their pension because their career is going nowhere from now on. If they are a political appointee, they will soon be saying hello to the private sector.

    The only way to stop the EPA is a law passed by Congress that specifically prohibits the EPA from regulating CO2 and other GHGs under the Clean Air Act.

  81. WestHoustonGeo says:

    Quoting:
    “At the same time, since CO2 level is the trigger for the breathing reflex ”

    Commenting:
    Your remark triggered a memory of a BBC (irony!) show called, I believe, “The Body Human”. The host of this particular episode re-breathed his own exhalations through a CO2 scrubber. So, he wound up breathing mostly nitrogen. Meanwhile he wrote the alphabet on a piece of paper.

    Soon, the viewer could see that he was making a hash of letters and the man passed out. I should mention, there was a doctor in attendance who took him off the gadget and gave him O2. The host, once revived, described his state of mind as feling fine, not recognizing any distress and not noticing the mess he was making on the paper. His breath rate, recorded on a paper tape (long time ago, this) was quite regular.

    WIthout CO2 there is, apparently, no urgency to find oxygen when it is in short supply. This sounds like a vital substance to me!

  82. Peter Plail says:

    Mike T (12:57:20)
    Thanks for your suggestion to complain to the Beeb. Have acted. Can I suggest that others do too. Not just UK residents – the BBC’s equality policies will allow it to accept complaints from anywhere.

    I am coming to the conclusion that they are trying to influence the melting of the polar ice from the heat radiated from those, who like me, are incandescent at such grossly biased reporting.

  83. jim papsdorf says:

    Glenn Beck To The Rescue !!!!!!!
    As I speak he is interviewing Barasso from Wyoming re the Smoking Gun Memo !!!!!!!!

  84. Smokey says:

    Mark (13:33:06),

    Excellent link, thanx for posting it. Unfortunately, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had alarmist frightmongers to counter this reasonable testimony. And the committee Chair, Barbara Boxer, is surely incapable of even understanding the issue.

  85. jim papsdorf says:

    Re Glenn Beck Interview:
    It was on Fox News-very short-you may be able to review it on http://www.hulu.com
    Most significantly Beck mentioned that the proposed Cap and Trade will cost each American family approximately $1600. Per year !!!!!!!

  86. HanGZen says:

    Here that?

    It’s the sound of Al Gore’s dubious life long project taking it’s last Co2 laced breath….

    Music to my ears!

  87. juan says:

    Re: G. E. Smith

    And I have seen reports that say that 20% of the present world total food production can only be explained by taking account of the 37.5% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age.

    I’ve been looking for the source of this. Any chance you’ve got a link?

    juan

  88. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    George E. Smith (09:33:44) :

    “”” Scott B (09:01:28) :

    Anyone making the claims that increased CO2 is beneficial is just as deluded as those saying it’s a serious danger. We don’t know enough about the various factors that influence our climate to say either way. “””

    That’s simply not true Scott. There are too many green house operations growing crops in an elevated CO2 environment to claim that we have no proof that enhanced CO2 can be beneficial.

    And I have seen reports that say that 20% of the present world total food production can only be explained by taking account of the 37.5% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age.

    So which 1.2 billion of the world people would you condemn to startvation by returning the CO2 to 280 ppm ?

    That’s easy to answer – it will be the poorest 1.2B Humans who will suffer the most.

  89. Kath says:

    BBC: I’m a subscriber to BBC World on cable TV. As a customer of the BBC, I feel that I, too, have a right to complain about their biased news reports. I really feel sorry for UK residents who have to pay for their annual TV Licenses. Been there, done that.

    As for the EPA, they should make a determined effort to ban the chemical H2O. Not only will it cause intoxication if used in excess, but can cause death. The health implications of this compound are enormous. We are surrounded by it! http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm

    Forget about CO2. Ban H2O now!

  90. George M says:

    OK, here’s what we need to do.

    1)Make a list of all the endangered plants which will possibly suffer from CO2 levels which are lower than present.

    2)File a class action suit against EPA in the name of the Endangered Species Act. Invite all the enviro organizations to join in the suit, or give a reason why not.

  91. Tamara says:

    Carbon dioxide is essential to the body, not just as a bi-product of respiration. It also serves the same buffering function that it plays in the ocean. The equilibrium between CO2, carbonic acid and carbonates (which are excreted by the kidneys) allow the body to be regulated in a specific pH range.
    Each exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2, or 40,000 ppm.

  92. George E. Smith says:

    “”” WestHoustonGeo (14:17:15) :

    Quoting:
    “At the same time, since CO2 level is the trigger for the breathing reflex ”

    Commenting:
    Your remark triggered a memory of a BBC (irony!) show called, I believe, “The Body Human”. The host of this particular episode re-breathed his own exhalations through a CO2 scrubber. So, he wound up breathing mostly nitrogen. Meanwhile he wrote the alphabet on a piece of paper.

    Soon, the viewer could see that he was making a hash of letters and the man passed out. I should mention, there was a doctor in attendance who took him off the gadget and gave him O2. The host, once revived, described his state of mind as feling fine, not recognizing any distress and not noticing the mess he was making on the paper. His breath rate, recorded on a paper tape (long time ago, this) was quite regular.

    WIthout CO2 there is, apparently, no urgency to find oxygen when it is in short supply. This sounds like a vital substance to me! “””

    I’m no physiologist, but that is my understanding too. If you hold your breath, it is not the lack of oxygen in your lungs that eventually causes you to breathe, it is the build up of CO2 in the lungs that ultimately forces you to take a breath (if you can). At least that’s what I have been told.

    Also it is my understanding that the New zealand Maori people used to treat drowning victims by stringing them up upside down over a fire with green flax leaves on it to keep the flames down but make a lot of smoke. It is assumed that by sticking you into a high CO2 concentration you would eventually instinctively gasp for air.

    My guess is it worked often enough to become part of their medical folklore.

    George

    PS I believe that scuba diving manuals say that Oxygen becomes toxic below 150 ft depth, which is about five times normal oxygen, so you can’t breathe ordinary air beyond that depth. My scuba daughter is into fancy diving mixtures; so I will see what she has to say.

    But CO2 never becomes toxic, it just displaces air so you can’t get oxygen.

    I have seen videos of places in Africa near semi-active volcanoes, where CO2 seeped out of the volcanoe underground, and filled depressions down by rivers, so villagers and their children who wandered down into the water either to swim, or get water, found themselves asphyxiated from lack of oxygen. In the video I saw, they threw burning materials out into the depressions, and the fire got snuffed out with residual smoke spreading ominously on what was clearly a dense layer of CO2. Very dramatic footage that wised up the villagers in a hurry; they had been losing children to an unknown terror.

    George

  93. Rich says:

    [snip OT]

  94. steptoe fan says:

    I have just posted my brief objection to the EPA proposal .

    I would encourage all to do the same, its a very easy process with one note of caution :

    make sure your comment is attached to the document itself – not to another persons comment ( unless you wish to really do that – you can do both ! )

    EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0001

    when you finish you have an opportunity to edit or to publish and you will get a confirmation screen :

    Thank you. Your comment on Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0001 has been sent.

    Your Comment tracking number is xxxxxxxxxxx .

  95. cbullitt says:

    If this document is genuine, this is very good news–but only if it is blasted throughout the hyerverse to the extent that the MSM has to report it.

  96. Frank Kotler says:

    @ Nasif Nahle (12:45:49) :

    I beg to differ on CO2 being an intoxicant. I once brewed a batch of beer and bottled it too early. Being young and even more foolish than I am now, I braved the exploding bottles and poured it back into the crock. Having heard that CO2 had “interesting” properties, I stuck my face into the crock and took a lungful. Definitely trippy! (this is *not* anoxia… running out of O2 is symptom-free… outside of death… ask a pilot.)

    Keep it mum, though, or the DEA will want to schedule it. :)

    Best,
    Frank

  97. Rich says:

    Sorry if I violated a rule, I was going by site’s direction- “For story ideas or other items related to this website: leave a comment on any thread. ”
    Is there are different procedure?
    I honstly am trying to play by the rules.
    Again, my apologies.

  98. John Boy says:

    Robert Kral,

    I forgot what my point was, but it’ll fit in here somewhere in this ~snip~

    The Boy of John

  99. Bill P says:

    John Galt (14:02:42) :

    We’ve seen what happens to people who stand up against AGW, particularly people who work for the government. I hope whoever wrote this is eligible for their pension because their career is going nowhere from now on. If they are a political appointee, they will soon be saying hello to the private sector.

    The only way to stop the EPA is a law passed by Congress that specifically prohibits the EPA from regulating CO2 and other GHGs under the Clean Air Act.

    The purpose of this memo was to point out the holes in the CO2 Endangerment argument put forth by EPA. (BTW, Thanks Joseph, for the link above). It does this all too well.

    The form of this is a legalistic critique intended to “help” the lawmakers in the deliberative phase of their NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?) But, going way out on a limb, I’d say this writer believes the CO2 / harm connection is a pure crock. Moreover, he / she sees that the EPA has made an exceedingly weak case out of thin air.

    As you correctly observe: whoever wrote this may have been too smart for his / her own good. It might be a pleasant surprise to see that the President himself, or members of his administration, takes credit for requesting an opposing view in order to better his own decision-making. Isn’t it better to own up a heresy than to pretend it never happened?

  100. Paul James says:

    Here’s the Daily Telegraph report on Catlin

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5320251/Arctic-expedition-to-measure-Arctic-ice-makes-it-less-than-half-way-to-North-Pole.html

    Now let me see :

    The Catlin Expedition set off with the fixed intent to show that Arctic ice is thinner than it should be and they say that they find it to be so.

    The IPCC set off with the fixed intent to prove that there is a link between AGW and CO2 and they say that they find it to be so.

    And this “verification” of a fixed intents passes for Science ?

    And yes I know the answer.

  101. KimW says:

    Well, I saw the BBC report. What a lot of cobblers. The snowmobiles and “Arctic” clothing at the beginning were obviously shot near a settlement – it’s May and sea ice near coasts is melting. The jumping into a polyna by the Catlin representative and the sub surfacing – don’t polynas exist everywhere the ice pulls apart, no matter what the temperature? – and what about that photo from 1987 of three subs surfaced at the North Pole ?. The expert with the digitised submarine ice sounder records – very careful and edited question and answer there. What a farce. Thank goodness that I am not one of those forced to pay for the BBC as it has become.

  102. Ric Werme says:

    Sorry for a way OT, but anyone who can receive Boston TV will be interested in my recent comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/10/a-report-on-the-surfacestations-project-with-70-of-the-ushcn-surveyed/

    In a shocking report scheduled to be aired on CBS Channel 4 tonight (May 13, 2009) at 11 P.M., Anthony Watts, a veteran broadcast meteorologist, concludes that we can not trust the reliability of temperature data collected across the United States.

    Followup comments over there, please. (Or other appropriate thread.)

  103. Before Gore Kneel says:

    “BBC News right now … reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! ”

    Well, that settles it! I am turning off the Gulf Stream right now! That’ll fix em.

  104. philincalifornia says:

    Before Gore Kneel (16:29:47) :
    “BBC News right now … reporting that the Catlin expedition has proof that the Arctic icecap will be gone in 5 years! ”

    Well, that settles it! I am turning off the Gulf Stream right now! That’ll fix em.
    ————————————

    What kind of psychiatry makes these people so DESPERATELY want the Arctic ice to melt away …. so that they can save the Arctic from having its ice melt away ???

    I’m going to join you, because I’m one of those omnipotent beings known as humans too. I shall make up a few million barrels of CFCs in my basement and create an ozone hole over the Arctic, which will in turn cause the sea ice area to expand and thwart their dastardly plan. A peer-reviewed paper has convinced me that this experiment WILL work !!

  105. Gerry says:

    No doubt the EPA reply to the OMB will be that CO2 is a health hazard because it causes lethal global warming.

    Perhaps the OMB will agree, and the EPA can next propose to sell the Brooklyn Bridge for a bargain price because their scientists find it is too dangerous for public use.

  106. W. James says:

    The end of the tape brings up a good point.
    The EPA does NOT enforce most of its regulations uniformly.
    Theoretically they can get away with it by acting on only businesses (which have no constitutional rights). But once they begin to turn the screws on individuals; it becomes an equal protection issue.

    Since we all generate CO2, we all must be issued allowances or bills. All of us uniformally.

  107. DaveE says:

    Posted this complaint at the Times

    re

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5320251/Arctic-expedition-to-measure-Arctic-ice-makes-it-less-than-half-way-to-North-Pole.html

    What sort of rubbish are you publishing these days?

    The Catlin expedition never left 1st year ice so what did they expect to find? I suspect they expected to find ice significantly thinner than they did.

    The slightly more high tech Wegener Institute overfly with instruments designed to do what the ‘Sprite’ radar that failed were surprised that the ice was thicker than expected. I guess that’s why the ‘Sprite’ failed.

    Dave.

    DaveE.

  108. John Boy says:

    The censor guy is really on his game. I shall rephrase. MY comment will fit in this gumdrop stack.

    The Reformed Boy of John

  109. DaveE says:

    Sorry.

    I was so incensed that I could do no better than that as a complaint of their coverage.

    I should probably have waited until I calmed down.

    DaveE.

  110. Yukon Peat says:

    One of the single largest sources of CO2 comes from the decomposition of dead plant material. It totaly dwarfs all human based emissions. All you composters out there, think of all the CO2 your releasing into the atmosphere the next time your turning your compost pile.

    Personally I bag all my lawn clippings in plastic bags and send them to the landfill. So where is my carbon credit check Mr Gore???

  111. DaveE says:

    I probably posted it at the Telegraph LOL

    DaveE.

  112. Indiana Bones says:

    John Boy (11:28:56) :

    Increased CO2 in the bloodstream (which results from holding one’s breath) increases PH which is sensed by chemo-receptors in the brain which stimulate breathing. We expell CO2 from our bodies because it is harmful.

    From your abstract:

    “Feedback for CO2 involves the carotid body and receptors in the brainstem, central chemoreceptors. Small increases in CO2 produce large increases in breathing. ”

    Let’s keep in mind that the breathing mechanism in humans is distinct from the Earth’s climate system. Note however that the CO2 functions as a catalyst to breathing so as to maintain the O2/CO2 balance. Similarly, as CO2 increases in atmosphere various mechanisms (carbon sinks, biological growth, changes in albedo) seem to counter the effect, keeping the rate of increase steady until (perhaps) it reverses and “exhales.”

  113. Indiana Bones says:

    John Galt (14:02:42) :

    “This memo does not reflect the official policy of the EPA or the Obama administration. It is already being poo-pooed by the EPA and the media.

    We’ve seen what happens to people who stand up against AGW, particularly people who work for the government. I hope whoever wrote this is eligible for their pension because their career is going nowhere from now on. If they are a political appointee, they will soon be saying hello to the private sector.”

    John, you may be right – unless the author(s) come out and name themselves. At which point THIS community, i.e. skeptics, must back these truth bearers up. Obama cannot afford to fire or hamstring a public servant doing their best to get the truth out. Even if it’s critical of thy unholy AGW!

    On the other hand, this may be a backdoor exit strategy. Setting up the Admin to reneg on the Cap N Trade scheme which has less support each day.

  114. juan says:

    Did anyone else take in Lisa Jackson’s interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN this afternoon? Did I hear her right, to say that CO2 mitigation would cost the average family about $135 a year?

    Juan

  115. Nasif Nahle says:

    Frank Kotler (15:35:04) :

    @ Nasif Nahle (12:45:49) :

    I beg to differ on CO2 being an intoxicant. I once brewed a batch of beer and bottled it too early. Being young and even more foolish than I am now, I braved the exploding bottles and poured it back into the crock. Having heard that CO2 had “interesting” properties, I stuck my face into the crock and took a lungful. Definitely trippy! (this is *not* anoxia… running out of O2 is symptom-free… outside of death… ask a pilot.)

    Keep it mum, though, or the DEA will want to schedule it. :)

    Hah! Interesting experience! :D

    It’s possible that you have inhaled methanetiol and/or other organosulfur volatile substances produced by fermentation and putrefaction.

    E. Denise Baxter, Paul S. Hughes. 2001. Beer: Quality, Safety and Nutritional Aspects.The Royal Society of Chemistry. UK

    Best,

    Nasif

  116. thomas says:

    It should not surprise you that the BBC is the most fanatical religous AGW ‘news’ organisation, after all, Britain is fast becoming a police state, people being arrested for ‘hate speech’. BBC, propaganda for the sheep.

  117. Dave Middleton says:

    Replying to…

    Bill P (10:31:02) :

    –Somebody in the OMB has a good head on their shoulders.

    I would say soomebody’s head (John Orszag?) may be separated from his shoulders.

    Read the retraction:

    TUE, MAY 12, 4:31 PM EST
    OMB Director Orszag Corrects the Record on the OMB & EPA

    In a post entitled “Clearing the Air”:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/OMB-Director-Orszag-Corrects-the-Record-on-the-OMB-and-EPA/

    Still, it makes one wonder if all is running smoothly in the new Camelot.

    So…John Orszag says…

    “The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration…”

    And that’s not indicative of internal doubts about the EPA position?

    I wonder how the Gorebots would react if an AAPG or ExxonMobil document surfaced that suggested that many of the world’s sedimentary geologists believed that Gang-Gore was correct about climate change. I doubt they would say, “OK” if the AAPG or XOM said, “These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either ExxonMobil or the AAPG…”

    We all know that if the memo “shoe was on the other foot” (the right foot)…Obama’s DOJ and the Reid-Pelosi Congress would be holding the mother-of-all tobacco-style Spanish Inquisitions.

  118. pft says:

    In public buildings and sports areans CO2 levels reach 2000 -3000 ppm. The occupational safety standards have set a limit at 5000 ppm. Each breath we take we exhale CO2 at 35,000 to 50,000 ppm.

    Outdoor CO2 is in no way, shape or form unhealthy, even in urban environments where it may reach 600 ppm.

  119. Chazz says:

    I tried to send my comment to the EPA but their website “timed out” on me even when I cut, paste, send in a second or two. Anyone have a mini tutorial for us?

  120. Paul James says:

    John Boy (11:28:56) :

    “Increased CO2 in the bloodstream (which results from holding one’s breath) increases PH”

    I am no physiologist but i would have thought that the opposite was true with respect to pH ?

    ah yes from Wicki

    “The principal result of the increased amount of dissolved CO2 is acidosis (respiratory acidosis when caused by impaired lung function);”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_retention

    But this is an AGW supporting post so I guess that acidification and basification all fit the modelled outcome.

    In Newspeak white is black and black is white except when they’re not of course.

  121. Michael D Smith says:

    Well, I did take the opportunity to click the “WeCanSolveIt” link on the advertisement… I find it deliciously ironic that my clicking it might help fund Anthony’s fine work at the expense of fools.

  122. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Note just sent to Benny Peiser at CCNet:

    Hi Benny,

    If I were the Chinese, I would not lend another dime to the USA until they conducted an objective review of the science of climate change and the economics of CO2 abatement.

    Why lend more money to anyone who is about to commit economic suicide, and with absolutely no scientific justification?

    The Waxman-Markey bill makes the sub-prime fiasco look rather prudent, in comparison.

    Best, Allan

    P.S. to wattsup:

    As you may know by now, I like America and Americans, but am deeply concerned that your government has lost all its wits regarding the global warming scam.

    This leaked memo is a glimmer of light in the darkness – I hope it is read with sober reflection.

    Imbeciles will rage at the fact that the memo was leaked, but intelligent people will recognize that it is a very important first step on the path to renewed sanity.

  123. theduke says:

    Remember Ike’s “military-industrial complex” speech. It’s a favorite of the political left, but there is a part of it they never quote. It is a part I believe is relevant to the EPA’s finding. It comes directly after Ike warns in the speech of the military-industrial complex:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    “In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

    * and is gravely to be regarded.

    “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

    “It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

  124. Smokey says:

    The political grandstanding surrounding this issue is so thick you could cut it with a knife — but wouldn’t it be best to zero in on the central issue, and decide whether it’s right or wrong?

    The statement made is whether increased CO2 results in “no demonstrated direct health effects.”

    Rather than make the issue the people who are backpedalling on the question, let’s get some answers to that essential question: Does CO2, at current and projected levels, pose a health risk??

    Several posters have shown that in this context, higher CO2 levels are completely harmless. That is the central question — not the person who raised that question.

  125. Arn Riewe says:

    WAKE UP FOLKS!

    Here is the contents of a canned letter that the Sierra Club has created for submission to the EPA. On the first web page of recent comments, about 8 of of 10 submissions were this letter.

    “Determining that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, as EPA has now done, is a bold and necessary first step towards solving the climate crisis . The scientific evidence for this decision, produced by “decades of research by thousands of scientists from the U.S . and all around the world,” is “compelling, and, indeed, overwhelming .” Your proposed findings make the case for action by demonstrating that climate change threatens “virtually every facet of the living world around us” and that its effects include “sickness and death.”\ And there can be no doubt that emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to global warming pollution. Your statement that this problem “cannot be solved by one regulatory action alone,” and that you will look at the “whole picture,” is very encouraging, especially combined with the many next steps EPA outlines . I urge you to move rapidly ahead with strong new rules designed to control greenhouse gases and provide a sound foundation for our economy . No one wants to mention that Coal is the largest contributor of Mercury into our atmosphere, and then our oceans . This needs to be stopped or greatly reduced. No one wants to mention the manipulation America has suffered while presenting record profits to Big Oil and their investors . This, too needs to change . When we have so many irreproachable reasons to do what is right, why does it seem to be so difficult? Swiftly finalizing these findings will jump start EPA’s efforts to address global warming now, before it is too late .”

    I just filed my personal response to the EPA docket. I was really frustrated by the filing instructions that send to the website which says to use the online filing instructions that aren’t there. Grrrr…

    I urge you to file your comments. The deadline is June 23. Don’t let the Sierra Club canned letter overwhelm the comments, even though they point out the “sickness and death” that the “Big Oil & Coal” is causing.

  126. Arn Riewe says:

    theduke (18:41:14) :

    Eisenhower speech on Scientific-Elite complex link:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

    Eventually I suspect it will be recognized how prescient Ike was.

  127. Andy Beasley says:

    Mark (13:33:06) :

    “We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no
    higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 times current atmospheric levels.”

    I can remember seeing CO2 above 4% and O2 at 15.7 on the air monitor, IIRC. According to OSHA less than 19% O2 is IDLH. Guess they got that one wrong, too.

  128. rbateman says:

    If you get CO poisoning, and they get to you in time, you get a tranfusion of blood to replace your hemoglobin, otherwise you suffocate because your blood cannot carry oxygen with C0 stuck all over your hemogloblin.
    If you pass out from too much C02, and they get to you in time, they simply move you to fresh air. There’s no lasting toxic effect.
    It takes 2 weeks to recover from C0 poisoning, the time it takes for your blood supply to regenerate.
    They sell C0 monitors for your house, and the alarm goes off at 25ppm, your OSHA limit. You don’t need a C02 monitor or an oxygen sensor. That would run the bill for your sensors
    up past $3k…or worse.
    You sure as heck don’t need a Stamp Tax on your air supply for a measly 380ppm when the normal limit is 13 times greater than the present atmosphere.

  129. Mike Strong says:

    I might suggest that you contact Lisa Jackson directly to complain about the EPA falling for the IPCC scam and Al Goracle. Her email is listed publicly on the EPA site: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

    Let her know directly that she needs to THINK and listen to counter-evidence (like the Antarctic growing and growing…and the Arctic is nicely recovered from the CYCLIC 2007 low ice).

    Most of these people (like Ms. Jackson) must have flunked science classes in high school and “logic 101″ in college.

  130. DaveE says:

    “decades of research by thousands of scientists from the U.S . and all around the world,” is “compelling, and, indeed, overwhelming .”

    Name 100!

    DaveE

  131. rbateman says:

    If C02 were toxic, you’d be finding your kids passed out after opening a six pack of coke in their room. Such insulting memos we have in high places.
    Oh, for crying out loud, my dad used to bring home a block of dry ice, sit it on a stool and blow a fan across it to cool us off. Nobody passed out or got sick. That was before you could buy an air conditioner.
    Dry ice.
    Frozen C02. We had fun sticking our fingers on it.
    I don’t recall anyone calling the ambulance or reading about Joe Somebody dying from a block of C02 ice in their living room.
    How did we get to this sad day?

  132. DaveE says:

    Arn Riewe (19:00:08) :

    I would actually take a little heart from multiple subscriptions of a form letter. It shows at the very least a concerted collaborative effort which may, (hopefully), be interpreted as conspiracy.

    DaveE.

  133. Nasif Nahle says:

    OSHA limits for carbon dioxide are mainly based on previous experiences at workplaces and experiments in animals (other than humans) updated in 1968, so it’s quite normal to see especial cases on which people seems to have no adverse effects from changes of the concentration of some substances in the air.

    CO2 is not toxic; it simply is not oxygen, the same applies to water. CO2 doesn’t sustain life of oxygen-dependent organisms because it isn’t a substitute for oxygen in cell respiration.

    On the other hand, CO (carbon monoxide) is toxic because it causes changes in the cell metabolism immediately after it has been ingested (by inhalation, of course). The upper limit for CO is 35 ppmV.

    Another resource for workplaces security is the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), although the parameters for carbon dioxide haven’t changed too much since 1968 because its toxicity has not been demonstrated clinically, except in AGW minds.

    To classify the carbon dioxide as a toxic substance is the silliest thing I have listened in my whole life. Those people dismiss science, clinical studies, observation and reason. Those people only have two words in mind … power and money.

  134. Nasif Nahle says:

    Divers use to hyperventilate before diving for decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in their blood. This practice allows them to last for longer periods under water. The only adverse effect observed is that they lose their physiological ability to determine when they must to go out from water for breathing because it is high levels of carbon dioxide what stimulates the necessity of oxygen, not the low levels of oxygen. We instinctively do the same thing before and during sexual activity.

  135. Robert says:

    The light bulb is at last starting to flicker and hopefully it will turn on when reality bites. With a bit of luck the grandiose posturing of politicians will take a beating when they finally start looking at the real implications of what is being proposed. It’s all about the details- something too easy to forget when you are grandstanding at the 50,000 foot level.

  136. savethesharks says:

    The greatest tragedy of this CO2 demonization….

    Is that, while the AGW and CO2 police attempt to hold the world hostage through political and money-making means….

    REAL environmental tragedies get thrown under the bus.

    I have said this many times, and even though I am a vehement ENEMY of Al Gore and John Holdren and everything they stand for, the idea of “green” is not bad…at all.

    Its a shame that Ms. Jackson seems to hold forth as a bureaucrat and not as a chemical engineer with her comments….she seems smarter than that than to sequester herself in the classic bureaucra-response…but I might be wrong.

    Back to CO2…as a matter of fact…CO2 is “green.”

    I plant lots of plants and go landscape ape crazy this time of year for family and friends.

    I don’t know….just an urge I have.

    TWO different arguments here:

    1) Is the science of AGW a bunch of BS and the political agenda behind it (cap and trade, etc.) worse than BS [downright evil if you ask me]? YES

    2) Is the human species raping planet Earth (especially China?). YES

    TWO separate arguments. But mostly the burden of proof is on the AGW side duplicity

    [For example: George Bush is way more in practice an environmentalist than is Al Gore]

    Either side…don’t throw the other’s baby out with the dirty, disgusting bathwater.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  137. Nasif Nahle says:

    I forgot to mention that when the brain detects low levels of oxygen in blood, it send signals to lungs for taking oxygen from blood at any cost. Thus, the nervous system suffers hypoxia and goes into a blackout or syncope.

    **small correction: I wrote “…they must to go out from water…”. It should have said “…they must go out from water…”. Sorry! :)

  138. David Ball says:

    Anthony, I love your blog more every time I open it. Other than the usual troll suspects, there are amazing and intelligent posters here. I hope your blog brings you and all those who assist you every success imaginable!!! I believe the surfacestations project will vault you to the top. Your 15 minutes (hopefully more) will be well earned!! WUWT has been extremely cathartic for me, so I thank you and your team from the bottom of my heart. You may have noticed that some posters raise my hackles and cause me to bare my teeth. I appreciate your understanding in this matter. Highest regards, …. David Ball

    REPLY:
    Well, gosh. – Anthony

  139. AKD says:

    Nothing in the EPA ruling suggests that CO2 is directly toxic to life. I know it’s an easy battle to fight, but it is not the important one. “CO2 is toxic” is a straw man. You know what the real debate here is, so why play these games?

  140. savethesharks says:

    I will repeat that:

    CO2…..is “green.”

    Not rocket science….or even 7th grade earth science.

    Ask one of your plants.

    [Oh if they could talk....]

    Yikes…I am glad some of my houseplants can talk….

    But to repeat:

    CO2…is GREEN……

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  141. savethesharks says:

    Correction:

    Glad some of my houseplants can NOT talk.

  142. savethesharks says:

    David Ball (21:00:50)

    I second that….

  143. VG says:

    OT but comment on current direction of this site. Me thinks people will start getting lost with so many postings. Suggest that really important (science ones) be picked and kept for longer discussion etc. Just an idea…..Maybe a survey. There seems to be extra interest when ice and temp data is posted re current trends. BTW best science site by far re “climate change” LOL

  144. VG says:

    CT ice data seem to be stuck at 1st week May are they all the same (NSIDC etc..)? Some info on this would be very welcome.

  145. J. Peden says:

    David L. Hagen (10:22:57) :

    Somewhere I read that a minimum level of CO2 is essential for some physiological process. Can anyone provide details and a reference?

    What I was taught is that:

    The trick here is to understand that in the human body, CO2 levels and control are actually all about regulating the acidity – H+ concentration – of the cells and extracellular fluids to maintain a pH level appropriate for all of the chemical processes necessary for life to operate successfully.

    For example, in terms of a minimum CO2 body concentration consistent with life, as long as the ratio [HCO3-]/[dissolved CO2] can be maintained or adjusted over time to about 20/1 everything will proceed normally:

    pH = 6.1 + log [HCO3-]/[dissolved CO2], normally about 7.4 .

    So it’s at least possible to exist with a very low CO2 concentration. What that level is, I have no idea, but it would vary according to what the body is doing to try to maintain a “healthy” pH, via “ventilation”/breathing rates to affect CO2 concentrations, and kidney action to help control HCO3- under different conditions imposed by life and diseases.

    Anyway, some CO2 must be present or at least being produced in order for the body to control its acidity so that it is at an appropriate enough level for all of the chemical reactions to operate so as to be able to support life.

  146. Leslie says:

    There’s always something to worry about.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/150502

    Get Ready to Itch and Sneeze

    A warmer planet could mean we’ll suffer more (and stronger) allergies.

    Global warming and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels appear to supercharge the growth of ragweed. And not only does ragweed grow larger and produce more pollen, its pollen is more allergenic, studies show.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/150502

  147. E.M.Smith says:

    Mike Bryant (09:20:37) : It seems odd to me that CO2 output is broken down into transportation, industrial, commercial and residential, since the only one of the four categories footing the bill is the last one, residential.

    For energy, it actually makes a fair amount of sense. Transportation is almost entirely oil. You want to know how much impact it will have on oil… BTW, the only way to make the transportation part smaller is to change the fleet or stop transporting. (Theoretically you could make biofuels, but I don’t see that happening on any scale larger than “toy”…). Since it takes a decade or two to change the fleet: Hope you were not planning on traveling anywhere or transporting any goods…

    Residential is almost entirely natural gas and electricity, same thing for commercial (but more of them can have boilers fired by other things). This is a human comfort area so you know who’s going to get peeved… Notice that lighting and environmental are almost all of it. Your choices are “Cold and dark” or “Hot and dark”… I suppose we could save some by not using hot water… “Smelly Hot and Dark”?

    Industrial is a mixed bag of natural gas (for things like chemical production) and coal (for a lot of every thing else – like making cement and steel). Changes here directly impact goods sold. No problem here. Production for cement can move to Mexico (buy Cemex… ) steel to Brazil, China, Korea. Chemicals to Brazil, China, India. See? Easy!

    I’m assuming that Agriculture is mixed in with Industrial. An odd way to do it or an odd omission… Or it could be in “transportation” since farming runs on Diesel. At any rate, we can import food from Mexico in Mexican trucks using Mexican oil and get that CO2 down… And we can use fertilizers made in China and Brazil for what we do grow (so most of the CO2 budget gets moved to “Free Pass” countries. We don’t really NEED to grow our own food, at least as long as the other countries still accept our credit card, er, money…

    Oddly missing from the chart is the other typical category: “Government”… I wonder why… FWIW, the single largest user of fuels and energy in the government is the military. The single largest user in the military is the Air Force. Don’t know of any decent way to run a B-52, B1-B, B2, F-16, F-22, etc. other than kerosene… Gonna be Real Hard to get 25-50% reductions and still fly anything. Tanks are exactly easy on fuel either… We won’t talk about the nautical miles per gallon of a troop transport or destroyer…

    I suppose we could replace our entire military vehicle fleet with some OTHER kind of vehicles that used some OTHER energy source, if there were one, at only a few $Trillion…

    Oh, one nit: Folks often say that “Only the consumer pays taxes” or as in this case: only the residential folks will foot the bill. While these statements are substantially true, they are not completely true.

    Imagine a person living Saudi Arabia and owning stock in General Electric. To the extent GE must pay taxes or pay for carbon offsets, less money is available to pay dividends, some of which would have gone to Saudi Arabia… Basically, a company can third party the costs to any of: the customer, the owners (via dividend reductions), the government (via lower taxes), suppliers (via bargained down costs of inputs), or the labor force (via lower wages). Often those suppliers, distributors, and other agencies are non-us actors; and often they are not “natural people” (i.e. corporations).

    Since most folks have a retirement account (that invests in other companies) and work for a living it’s more about right pocket vs left pocket; but there are those cases of overseas non-laborers…

    Every person in every category lives in a residence.

    Except the overseas stock and bond holders, some of which are foreign governments… and some of which are foreign companies. (“legal persons” as opposed to “natural persons”). And any overseas provider of goods, services and other “inputs”…

    A good example is steel. Right now prices are being negotiated lower due to the recession. If the Government kicks U.S. Steel with a Cap & Tirade Tax, then I can build my new building with Brazilian steel and dodge that tax. U.S. Steel might negotiate a better deal on iron ore or iron pellets from Vale in Brazil and cut it’s CO2 tax or it might just move operations to Brazil (thus whacking their US employees – of just negotiate those employees to a lower cost by threatening a move). Or it might file bankruptcy and whack the bond and stock holders. See Chrysler for an example of stock holders, bond holders, vendors and employees getting whacked… Now eventually a lot of the whacking hits the U.S. Citizens but not all!

    If you live here in the United States of America, and you are gainfully employed, you will pay every cost associated with all the sectors outlined above.

    Make that “substantially every cost” and I’d agree in most cases…

    If you do not understand this simple truth, you are either very young or hopelessly naive.

    Sadly, neither. Too old and hopelessly cynical tends to wrap around back to the starting point after a while ;-)

    It’s time to stop bailing out the banks, the unions the feds and Acorn. I think I’ll take a four year vacation, get a bike and turn the utilities off. Let’s see how they raise taxes from zero activity and zero income.

    Oddly enough, we have an existence proof of folks doing that, sort of, in California. Basically, my wallet is shut. Yeah, I could spend a lot more. But I won’t. Not till the place burns down, shakes down, or fiscally collapses.

    Not one nickel I can prevent will go to fund my own demise. Had the spooky experience of driving at 5 pm peak rush hour down a major highway (101) where it was widened a half decade or so ago to accommodate the rush hour traffic. It reminded me of 2am (when I’d take that route to avoid traffic) – mostly empty. Stunning. There are clearly thousands not working and commuting…

    The number of businesses who have packed up and left the state is also very large. Whole swaths of Silicon Valley have had “for lease” signs up for the last half decade (or in some cases longer).

    For now, my money is OOTUS (Out Of The U.S.) in foreign investments via tax sheltered accounts and I’m not spending money on anything that can be avoided. Why? Just helping the process along so it will be over sooner… (I hate waste, and any money handed to the State is waste at this point. I hate stupid behaviours. I don’t do stupid well at all. Giving them more money is just stupid, and I don’t do stupid…

    This kind of environment is, IMHO, what’s coming to the rest of the U.S.A. Real Soon Now. And thanks to the same folks… Boxer, Pelosi, DNC, …

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/csd-california-socialism-disorder/

  148. David Ball says:

    Sorry AKD, I don’t see what the “real” argument here is. Please tell me.

  149. David Ball says:

    There is a ton of fear mongering going on in the media these days. I, for one, refuse to be frightened. They will not control me through fear.

  150. Mark T says:

    AKD (21:00:57) :

    Nothing in the EPA ruling suggests that CO2 is directly toxic to life. I know it’s an easy battle to fight, but it is not the important one. “CO2 is toxic” is a straw man. You know what the real debate here is, so why play these games?

    Well, the EPA’s mandate is to protect our health, so what is the point of their ruling if they do not think CO2 is toxic?

    Yes, we know what the real debate is: control.

    Mark

  151. Richard Heg says:

    More rubish from newscientist, at least they recycle.
    “Climate change diagnosed as biggest global health threat”
    “Over the coming century, climate change will worsen virtually every health problem we know of, from heart disease and heatstroke to salmonella and insect-borne infectious diseases.”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17126-climate-change-diagnosed-as-biggest-global-health-threat.html

  152. Mike Bryant says:

    E.M. Smith,
    Thanks for your comments and extra information. Every time you post I learn more than I can ever remember.
    Mike Bryant

  153. rbateman says:

    “Cap & Tirade Tax” has my vote for quote of the week.

  154. jenli says:

    Legal requirements from the “Health and Safety at Work Act in Germany” for workplaces define values < 1.500 ppm carbon dioxid (1,5 %) as benchmark for fresh air. Up to 2,5 % (2.500 ppm) is harmless for humans, 4 to 5 % are numbing, values above 8 % are mortal.

    I guess it is a long way from todays 380 ppm to harmless 2.500 ppm and even farther to harmfull 4.000/5.000 ppm.

    EPA’s “science” is a tasteless joke!
    Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!

  155. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Please see the article below from today’s newspaper.

    Waxman-Markey is even crazier than I thought. It could start a trade war.

    Canada and the USA have an energy-sharing agreement : in a crisis, if the USA is short of energy, Canada will share with you. Since Canada is a big oil exporter and the USA is a huge importer, this agreement is a one-way street – in a crisis, Canada gives and the USA gets.

    Waxman-Markey would put this agreement in jeopardy, in my opinion. Why would Canada help the USA when the US has started a trade war with us?

    Please – let’s try to get along, before this nonsense spirals out of control.

    Regards, Allan

    P.S. Earth is getting colder, not warmer.

    14 May 2009 Calgary Herald
    SHELDON ALBERTS CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
    WASHINGTON

    Prentice warns U.S. over carbon fee Draft law ‘trade protectionism’

    Environment Minister Jim Prentice on Wednesday warned U.S. lawmakers to drop proposed trade sanctions on imports from countries with higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, saying the measure would be a “prescription for disaster” for the global economy.

    In the Harper government’s toughest critique yet of draft U. S . c l i mate l e g i s l a t i o n, Prentice told a Washington audience a proposal to slap a “carbon border adjustment” fee on foreign manufacturers violates the core principles of international trade.

    In addition, any U.S. decision to impose such a trade tariff threatens the chances of reaching an international climate change deal later this year in Copenhagen, Prentice said.

    “Trade protectionism in the name of environmental protection would be a prescription for disaster for both the global economy and the global environment,” the minister said in remarks at the State Department to the Conference of the Americas.

    “Border carbon adjustments would be a thinly disguised restriction on trade and an impediment both to wealth creation and to the attainment of our collective objective, which is to address greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce them. They would constitute arbitrary discrimination. They won’t work and they threaten constructive negotiations.”

    Prentice was referring to sweeping climate legislation proposed by Democratic lawmakers Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, which is being debated by the House energy and commerce committee.
    It aims to slash America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 through the implementation of a mandatory cap and trade system on U.S. emitters.

    But the bill has triggered alarm among U.S. trade partners because it seeks to protect American companies put at a competitive disadvantage with foreign competitors by the strict emissions rule.

    The “border adjustment” program would allow the U.S. to demand foreign manufacturers “pay for and hold special allowance” to account for carbon included in products imported to the United States.

    The plan would apply to manufacturers “of goods from countries without a commensurate greenhouse gas regulation would pay a new charge at the border,” Prentice said.

    Prentice said Canadian companies are unlikely to be affected by the measure because the Harper government “will ensure that our greenhouse gas regulations will constitute a comparable effort.”

    Canada’s oil industry fears the measure would make it increasingly difficult for U.S. refineries to sell fuel from Alberta’s oilsands.

    ________________________________________

  156. Smokey says:

    Allan M R MacRae, I always enjoy reading your well thought out posts. You are exactly right concerning the threat to free trade, which looks like a repeat of the 1930’s. Waxman-Markey looks like a modern version of Smoot-Hawley. It will cause immense damage if passed.

  157. Lee Kington says:

    The adverse health effects of CO2 may exist. However, the threat does not come from the gas itself, but rather, from policies generated by those who refuse to acknowledge the realities of CO2, of climate, and of science. Current and future CO2 levels are not going to harm man, but, policies generated by some humans can, do, and may continue to do so.

    Advocating Death For The Poor

    The British medical journal “The Lancet” has teamed with University College London researchers and have published a paper on how public health services need to address climate change. To adapt. That concept, on the face is quite appropriate and logical. However, it is not the full story. It appears part of the focus is on population growth and ‘carbon’ emissions.

    A recent story from BBC News (LINK) says:

    It also stresses the value of adding the healthcare lobby’s weight to the call for decisive action from politicians and policymakers on climate and carbon mitigation issues.

    AND…..

    Although disease vectors, such as salmonella, are affected by temperature changes and are likely to ravage some populations, the authors believe that the primary global threat is from people themselves.
    Climate change will exacerbate the divide between rich and poor, hitting the poorest communities first and hardest.

    Adaptation to climate change is an essential step that man needs to pursue. Specifically in government, agricultural, medical, and energy sectors. The adaptation and related policies, however, should make allowances for and prepare the populace for climate change in either direction; warming and cooling. Of the two, climate cooling is more dangerous to man.

    The issue with salmonella is about sanitation, food handling, and food storage conditions. A change in global temperatures of 1 degree is not related to those. Education on food handling and facilitating the ability for proper and cool storage would be an effective function of the medical field. Blaming salmonella outbreaks on ‘carbon’ is stupid. Further, denying much of the population running water and refrigeration due to ‘carbon emissions’ is immoral and from the medical field an ethical violation.
    “Climate change will exacerbate the divide between rich and poor, hitting the poorest communities first and hardest.”

    That ‘division’ already exists. It is not due to climate change. It is due to ‘carbon policies’ which prevent those who don’t have running water and electricity the ability to obtain them. Those who have denying those who do not have. The paper talks about ‘migration’ problems. Those problems, in part, exist because when people are not permitted to have basic necessities of life where they are; they move to where they can have them.

    10 to 15 million people die in Africa each year that could and would survive if they had access to fresh water, electricity, and also with that modern medical facilities. Global warming advocates such as those at The British medical journal “The Lancet” the University College London deny that access. Deny them life. Plans for installing affordable power generation plants were scraped because the IPCC and those who support the bogus AGW threat say they cannot have them. The reason; concerns about CO2 emissions.

    Most large modern cities generate a much CO2 as the whole of the African continent. Hence, this is a case of those who have denying those who have not. Perhaps instead of mitigating ‘climate change’ the real intent of ‘The Lancet’ and the University College London is to mitigate the ability of survival for those not already developed into the modern era. Imagine that, a medical journal that advocates death for the poor.

    “The Lancet” and University College London need to review their moral ethic.

  158. Tim Clark says:

    Paddy (09:34:51) :
    I am unaware of any research dealing with the level of atmospheric CO2 below which there is danger to the biosphere. Am I wrong?

    Yes.
    I don’t have time to read all the comments, but:

    Actually, photosysnthesis doesn’t stop (ie. plants don’t die) at ~200 ppm CO2. Near that approximate, specie-specific ambient concentration, the rate of CO2 incorporation into carbohydrates (photosynthesis) is equivalent to the rate of mitochondrial respiration (and concommittent evolution of CO2). Theoretically, plants will germinate, but grow very slowly, if at all. Perennial species would subsist only, with 0 net CO2 incorporation. However, research with the highest R*2’s were done in growth chambers, and the expectation is atmospheric levels are probably closer to 220-240ppm. The open air research altering CO2 levels I’ve read to date have flaws based on erroneous physiological assumptions and containment issues.

    Speaking of physiology, the following paper is very interesting. Not because of the focus of the study or the authors conclusion, but because of the data indicates an interaction between light intensity and incorporated CO2 isotopic discrimination. Relate this to the associations between historical dating technology, atsmospheric isotopic concentration, cloud cover, volcanic ash, sun cycles, etc., etc., etc.

    http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/4/2144?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=co2+level+&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

  159. len says:

    Scott B.

    http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm#RobertC

    The Earth has a times sequestered CO2 to the point of severely stressing terrestrial life which by inferring biological responses evolved with an optimum CO2 level of 1000 ppm. Photosynthesis reaches a stress point at 250 ppm, the level of CO2 at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

    The physics of CO2 is abominable, but the politics around demonizing CO2 is pure evil. The fact is if you watch the AGW thumping ‘Earth, The Biography’, and read between the lines, CO2 is important without the temperature inference of flawed computer models … and it is enough for me to wonder at the current reach of this philosophy of AGW and its potential debilitating effects given its total lack of corroboration with reality. The Earth appears to naturally sequester CO2 without us and life loves 1000 plus ppm of this TRACE GAS being scrubbed out of the atmosphere by plant life and our oceans. Precarious indeed and even if we went on a mad quest for fossil fuel development, we would have little effect.

    On the other hand, I’m already getting tired of this Solar Grand Minimum …

  160. AKD says:

    David Ball (23:26:43) :

    Sorry AKD, I don’t see what the “real” argument here is. Please tell me.

    That increases in a benign trace gas will cause mass suffering and death through indirect effects.

  161. joan says:

    While I am all for the control of industrial/personal pollution to have cleaner air and environmentally friendly recycling and packaging for manufacturing, it is ridiculous for the government to put CO2 emmissions in a their cap and trade category. Is this an added measure to include other industries/people into “those to tax” category? So happy the EPA found no proof of harm from CO2…so happy a WHite House person released this- that’s working for the people!
    I think we can all agree that we should be accountable for what we buy (ie chemicals that may wash out to the waterways, land; plastics that won’t break down and/or can’t be recycled, etc) and how we dispose of our “trash”. Do we really need al those lights on, etc. While I buy cleaning products using friendly plant based cleaners. While I do all this, don’t eat meat and so much more, I refuse to buy those florescent, “green” bulbs as they have a high concentration of mercury- very toxic to us and the environment.
    Those of us who research both sides of the issue may agree that it is not certain we’re in a global warming era, but actually leaving this trend (thousands of years in the making) and heading into a freezing stage. It’s not likely any of us here reading this will live to experience this and they know that.
    As for CO2, we exhale CO2, and plants need this to live. We need plants to live as they produce oxygen. We need more open land and less development. Start with the basics, check into both sides and don’t always believe what the government is trying to feed you-there is greed well infiltrated within both parties people…Click below for an interesting summary of an article published in Science…

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N19/EDIT.php

  162. Sly Fox says:

    Let them all know that they will be held to account for this.

    Look at it this way. Assume all goes as planned by the Dems and in 5-10 years (sooner maybe) we are in a major HURT (depresssion, massive recession, whatever). There will be an outcry. “Who is responsible for this?” “What idiot approved shooting ourselves in the foot “(hell, shooting out both kneecaps is more like it).
    I can script the finger pointing and blame game now.

    Instead of arguing with these folks we should be conspicuously documenting what they know now and get them to specifically discount contrary evidence on camera. They will try to dodge getting their signatures on this once they realize what is going on.
    I’m talking interviews with everyone: politicians, advisors, the heads of all the institutions that have taken “Hard” stands. Let them all know that they will be held to account for this.

    My hypothesis: When they realize what is going on and they do the political calculus many of them will back down; maybe even turn an objective eye on the contrary evidence. Big maybe but arguing isn’t working.

  163. TonyB says:

    Well we are all responsible for a terrible moral AND health outrage. I hope you are all as thoroughly ashamed as I am. This reported today.

    “Climate change is the biggest health threat of the 21st century, leading academics claimed last night.
    Those who fail to take the issue seriously are as morally reprehensible as 18th-century slave traders, they said.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1181355/Climate-change-biggest-health-threat-21st-century-claims-report-global-warming.html

    This UK newspaper was quoting the Lancet-a highly respected medical journal.

    Sometimes, I think the world has been enveloped in an eco-madness.

    Tonyb

  164. TonyB says:

    Lee Kington

    Sorry, I meant to say that my post 10 39 44 was connected to yours in as much the sober material you posted from the Lancet has been given a much more sinister slant.

    tonyb

  165. Burch Seymour says:

    A lot of comments above concern the human body and CO2 – One thing we learned in EMT school was to be very careful when giving oxygen to people with chronic lung problems. Their body gets used to high CO2 levels and compensates by driving respiration on decreasing O2 levels in the blood. You slap a mask on them, their O2 level go way up, and they stop breathing and die.

    Not really related to AGW and CO2 in the atmosphere, but a good thing to know.

    And yes, it sure seems like the EPA (Everything’s Political Aroundhere) is on board to help fund the budget with income from regulation. But, as one very excellent commenter noted above – they have a history of ignoring science when making important rulings.

  166. Most unconvenient truths, that I will repeat for those naive believers:

    CO2 COLOR= COLORLESS

    WHERE CAN I FIND IT?= EVERYTIME YOU EXHALE, IN THAT FOAMY THING THAT GOES OUT FROM THE BOTTLE WHEN YOU DRINK A BEER OR A COKE, IN THE FOOD YOU EAT-ALL CARBOHYDRATES ARE MADE OF THAT STUFF-, IN SWEET CANDIES MADE OF SUGAR, IN THE COTTON CLOTHES YOU WEAR (COTTON IS A POLYMER OF GLUCOSE-AGAIN THAT SWEETY THING-), …etc.

    AH!…ALL THOSE GREEN PLANTS AND TREES YOU ARE SO FOND OF..BREATH IT

    THEN…HE LIED US!

  167. UK Sceptic says:

    AndrewP, Philincalifornia, Mike T et al.

    I’ve taken Mike T’s advice and sent a complaint about BBC biased reporting. I’ll reproduce it here because I’m hoping I’ve got my facts mostly right. I am, after all, an archaeologist and not any kind of expert on climate change. Please feel free to make corrections so that I can get my facts right when the BBC goes over the top about the Great Arctic Slushy Farce again. I’ll share the reply if and when I get one.

    Cheers.

    UKS

    Sirs,

    Complaint regarding BBC’s report from the Catlin expedition to the North Pole.

    During the BBC evening news report of 13th May, I watched as a thin rod was thrust through seasonally thinning, single year ice mere yards from the open sea. I listened to the reporter announcing how multi-year sea ice was thinning at an unprecedented rate due to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). He seemed to be inferring that the ice being measured for the camera was, in fact, multi-year ice. At no time did the reporter explain that the ice being measured was not multi-year ice. Nor did he mention how seasonal warming and the close proximity of the open sea might have an effect on the patch of ice being used for demonstration purposes.

    According to the BBC reporter the Arctic ice is diminishing at a rate faster than previously expected. But is it? According to satellite and other empirical scientific data this year’s Arctic ice has actually increased in extent and thickness and is currently at a twenty year maximum. Perhaps the reporter missed that part of the briefing before going out onto the ice to make his report? Or did he take the Catlin data at face value without asking any shrewd questions?

    I was interested by the expert, Professor Wadhams, who is rightly concerned about the decline of multi-year ice over the last few decades. Does he believe the decline to be the sole result of AGW? Or is it due to natural forcing such as the synchronous actions of the Arctic Oscillation and the enhanced warm surface temperatures associated with Low Frequency Oscillation believed responsible for most of the 1990s decline? He didn’t say.

    Perhaps BBC viewers would like to discover how the nuclear submarine, USS Skate, broke surface at the North Pole back in 1959. This is, of course, prior to the AGW factor supposedly kicking in and causing the thinning of multi-year ice. USS Skate’s record book feat does indicate that Arctic multi-year sea ice can and does diminish through natural forcing. Much like the Alaskan glaciers, currently in the process of growing again having been in natural decline for two hundred years.

    The Catlin expedition wasn’t the only team surveying ice thickness in recent weeks. The German Eisdicken (ice thickness) survey aircraft overflew the area of the North Pole in April, utilising their electronic ice thickness probe, EM-Bird, (as opposed to a hand drill and a measuring rod following Catlin equipment failure) deployed on a line beneath the aircraft. The Eisdicken data indicates two-year ice at the Pole to be up to four metres thick rather than the expected two metres. Why did the Eisdicken findings go unreported in favour of those of the Catlin expedition which actually failed to reach its goal? Why did the BBC reporter allow the Catlin team to state an average thickness of 1.7 metres without questioning them about minimum and maximum figures from which the average was derived? An average thickness figure gives a misleading impression of declining ice thickness. After all, up to 4 metres of polar ice doesn’t send a shiver up the spine in the same way an average 1.7 metres of ice does. Statistics is such a flexible discipline, isn’t it?

    I’m still waiting for the BBC to display some balanced climate change reporting rather than alarmism. But then, headlines such as “Arctic not melting after all” hardly grabs the public’s attention, does it. The BBC appears to prefer wallowing in AGW schadenfreude rather than balance the climate change equation with a frank presentation of contra-indicatory data. Heaven forefend that Joe Public should be allowed to make up his own mind.

    The BBC reporting of this story is biased, misleading and leaves a lot to be desired . It is needlessly alarmist and empirical evidence is either made ambiguous or ignored. The BBC brand used to equate with integrity and quality. No longer. It’s a biased anachronism that deserves to be put out of its misery. I object to funding the hysterical, nonsensical rhetoric the BBC expects me to accept as honest science. The BBC should be ashamed of itself.

  168. David Ball says:

    Sorry AKD, I thought you were debating the wrong side of the issue. I apologize. My misinterpretation. In retrospect, your posts have always been against AGW. Keep fighting the good fight. Me and my hair trigger, always ready for a scrap. :^]

  169. Burch Seymour says:

    Hello UK Sceptic…

    Most excellent! I am a software engineer and have no comments regarding content correctness, but it is extremely well written and persuasive. I hope the proper people read it and comprehend it. And to borrow from Dave Barry, “wallowing in AGW schadenfreude” would make an excellent name for band :-)

  170. Ayrdale says:

    This blog has become the best source of information for my own anti-AGW efforts….http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com/

    If every poster creates a blog (I know; many already have, but I’d guess quite a few have not,) and linked to this site, our collective voice may well amplify significantly.

    WuWT is a taonga. (Look it up.)

  171. Robert Wood says:

    Sly Fox @09:24:44

    We are monitoring and archiving their mad rantings. Sites like this and junkscience record all the economically and environmentally irresponsible silliness of the AGWERS. There will be no dissembling and denial of the public record.

    Al Gore, the post-modern Elmer Gantry, will be chased out of town.

  172. Robert Wood says:

    joan @09:14:39

    CO2 is the staff of life. It makes things grow and feeds people. It is the natural means of exchange of a carbon based life-form, such as we on Earth.

    It is not a pollutant … unless, of course, you consider all life a pollutant.

  173. Lee Kington says:

    TonyB (10:44:01) :

    LOL… no problem Tony. :)

    Though on my own blog terms such as democide and non-specific genocide appear with some rather terse comments I tend use a softer tenor in material I import to WUWT. A respect for the intent of WUWT and for Anthony. That said there are two realities for me which are applicable to the BC story and The Lancet.

    1) No one can demonstrate any death which has occurred due to global warming.

    2) AGW / Anti-Carbon policies can be demonstrated to be responsible for, or a least a large factor in, the deaths of millions.

    From you post:

    This UK newspaper was quoting the Lancet-a highly respected medical journal.

    Sometimes, I think the world has been enveloped in an eco-madness.

    Eco-madness I firmly agree with. As it applies to The Lancet, a medical journal, I find them to be lacking in professional morals and ethic.

  174. Nasif Nahle says:

    Adolfo Giurfa (13:46:27) :

    Most unconvenient truths, that I will repeat for those naive believers:

    CO2 COLOR= COLORLESS

    WHERE CAN I FIND IT?= EVERYTIME YOU EXHALE, IN THAT FOAMY THING THAT GOES OUT FROM THE BOTTLE WHEN YOU DRINK A BEER OR A COKE, IN THE FOOD YOU EAT-ALL CARBOHYDRATES ARE MADE OF THAT STUFF-, IN SWEET CANDIES MADE OF SUGAR, IN THE COTTON CLOTHES YOU WEAR (COTTON IS A POLYMER OF GLUCOSE-AGAIN THAT SWEETY THING-), …etc.

    AH!…ALL THOSE GREEN PLANTS AND TREES YOU ARE SO FOND OF..BREATH IT

    THEN…HE LIED US!

    High Score! I like this. :)

  175. UK Sceptic says:

    Burch Seymour

    Thanks for the kind comment. :D

  176. Ed Darrell says:

    Incentives to fight CO2 damage is a good thing? You should pick up a copy of the classic Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. You’re arguing the same as a rock through a window creates economic advancement, since the window has to be replaced.

    True, CO2 isn’t poisonous in current concentrations. Direct health effects should be expected to be slight. Indirect health effects are a different matter. Malaria is no laughing matter.

  177. Ed Darrell says:

    rbateman asks:

    What science? Where is the science that says that C02 is toxic?

    Got Google?

    Toxic CO2 and how to detect it, treat it, fight it, and prevent it.

  178. Chris says:

    Sounds like something to ask about at the public hearing….

    For those of you in the DC Area tomorrow:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    EPA Hearing on Proposed Endangerment Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act

    Contact: (News Media Only) Cathy Milbourn 202-564-7849 / 4355 / milbourn.cathy@epa.gov
    All Other Inquiries: Erin Birgfeld, birgfeld.erin@epa.gov

    (Washington, D.C. – May 15, 2009) EPA will hold the first of two public hearings on Monday, May 18 regarding the agency’s proposed findings that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The proposed findings identify six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

    The hearing is an opportunity for stakeholders and members of the public to voice their opinions on the proposed findings.

    WHAT: Public hearing on the proposed endangerment and cause and contribute findings

    WHEN: Monday, May 18th, 9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.

    The hearing will continue into the evening to accommodate all members of the public who wish to comment.

    WHERE: EPA Potomac Yard South Conference Center
    2777 Crystal Drive, Room S-1204
    Arlington, Va.

    Written comments will be accepted until June 23, 2009. EPA will consider written comments submitted during the comment period with the same weight as oral comments presented during the public hearing.

    More information on the hearing and for the audio webcast of the hearing: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/hearing_washington-may18.html

    More information on the proposed finding: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

    Source: USEPA Press Release Mailing List (subscribe at https://service.govdelivery.com/service/user.html?code=USAEPA)

  179. Roger Sowell says:

    Consequences of EPA declaring CO2 a pollutant, and subsequent cap-and-trade regulations from Congress, include reduced competitiveness by U.S. companies leading to reduced profits and more business failures.

    Such business failures will greatly reduce stock prices, and the savings plans of millions of Americans either in retirement, or about to retire.

    The result will be many millions of very angry retirees, or wanna-be-retirees, who are forced to keep working. The politicians will feel their wrath at the polls.

    Count on it.

  180. Pragmatic says:

    There is a new and interesting development on the CO2 regulation front. According to an analysis by climatologist Chip Knappenberger utilizing the EPA funded MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, developed by Dr. Tom Wigley and scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research – IF the Waxman/Markey bill were implemented and achieved a 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 – it would result in a “savings” of only 0.05C!

    http://masterresource.org/?p=2355

    “By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature “savings” of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.”

    In other words, mitigating CO2 emissions even at the draconian levels currently demanded – will have a negligible effect on warming, if any.

Comments are closed.