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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Thanks for the kind comment. :D

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

THEN…HE LIED US!

High Score! I like this. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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 :-)

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.

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!