http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-california-waiver30-2009jun30,0,1077405.story

I also read through Monckton’s offering which has a document ID of EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0700.1 . He does such a beautiful job of going for the jugular in the most cordial way. He makes The Team look like such a bunch of arrogantly lazy slobs….. which I guess is what they are.

I appreciate the opportunity to submit a comment on Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, the proposed public endangerment finding in regard to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

I am writing as a private citizen, I have no public office or position. My involvement with groups involved in one side or another of environmental issues is limited to a membership in The Nature Conservancy for a number of years and very large donations to that group and a past membership in the Sierra club. I have a law degree and an MBA and I currently work primarily as a mergers and acquisitions advisor in the health care industry. I believe it is particularly important for the EPA to solicit and consider the input and perspective of ordinary citizens on such a significant matter.

Although I am not a trained scientist, I have had a keen interest in science since childhood. I have subscribed to Scientific American for over thirty years and also subscribe to Nature and Science. I regularly read science books and I read a variety of online science information sources. I also have training in experimental methods and statistics. Several years ago I became interested in climate science and paleoclimatology. I am old enough to remember the articles regarding an impending ice age in the 1960s and the l970s, so when concerns were raised about a possible human-induced global warming, my curiousity was piqued and I have since read a wide variety of books and articles regarding the topic. I read not only popularized versions of the research but I increasingly seek the source articles published in technical journals. So I believe I have a relatively informed viewpoint and most importantly, a more detached and objective perspective than appears to exist among the various advocates in regard to this topic.

Many people will undoubtedly submit very detailed comments referring to various research in this area. I would like to briefly summarize a few thoughts and observations.

1. It appears to be the case that the earth has gone through multiple cycles of warming and cooling in the recent, in geological terms, past. These cycles have gone on well before humans arose on the planet and before humans engaged in activities which had the potential to significantly affect climate. These natural variations appear to be linked to variations in the earth’s orbit which affect the total amount of solar energy which reaches the planet and potentially to actual variations in solar energy output, the geographic configuration of continents and other features and other factors.

2. In the course of earth’s history, including the recent cooling and warming cycles, carbon dioxide levels have also apparently risen and fallen substantially. Carbon dioxide levels seem to have been higher than they are today in the past, but the earth cooled after those high levels and they have been lower than they are today and the earth still warmed. Given the inherent timing uncertainties in both the proxy temperature and proxy carbon dioxide records, it is unclear whether rising carbon dioxide levels preceded warming and whether falling carbon dioxide levels preceded cooling. In fact, it appears equally likely that rising carbon dioxide levels followed warming and falling carbon dioxide levels followed cooling. Given what we appear to know about the carbon cycle, either possibility could exist. A very recent research paper has shown fairly defiinitively that carbon dioxide levels did not fall before the most recent cooling episode.

3. The models in which carbon dioxide causes a temperature increase rely on positive feedbacks which are not supported by any actual research. That is not to say that these feedbacks don’t exist, but that there is no real-live experiments or studies which support or prove the existence of these feedbacks. This is a particular concern because negative feedbacks from rising carbon dioxide have also been postulated, although equally unproven. Given the uncertainties in the historical record of any correlation between rising or falling carbon dioxide levels and succeeding warming or cooling, and the lack of any experimental proof, relying on models would seem quite imprudent.

4. The earth is currently is one of the warming intervals between longer cooling periods. Based on past cycles we are likely nearing the end of this warming period. Warming, however, appears to have tended to continue to increase until a relatively abrupt transition to coooling. Given historical climate behavior, there is a strong possibility that any warming in the last century may be consistent with natural variation. In fact, the burden should be on those who believe it is not due to natural variation to prove that fact, given that natural variation appears so clearly in the historical record and the current warming is not inconsistent with other instances of natural variation in warming.

5. I have attempted to understand the various climate models used to project global warming. It is very difficult if not impossible to get the underlying equations, algorithms and code. This is an alarming situation if these models are being relied on in the setting of policy. The agency should demand that any models used in considering this issue be fully unveiled and available to the public for evaluation.

6. Global cooling periods are far worse for humanity than global warming eras. In fact, our current state of relatively advanced civilization is largely due to the most recent warming. It has facilitated the development of agriculture which has allowed a much higher standard of living and enabled urban living which created the environment for much greater sophistication in many human activities. The next cooling period will be devastating to human civilization. Perhaps our efforts would be best directed toward ensuring that we understood all the factors influencing climate and anticipating how we might address the cooling that is inevitably bearing down on us.

7. The various actions proposed to limit or reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have severe economic costs, particularly for poorer people and nations. The actions would reduce most people’s standard of living. These costs should not be imposed in the absence of firm, indisputable proof that carbon dioxide and other human emissions are responsible for the vast majority of any global warming which is or might occur.

8. Particulary alarming to me, given the very high regard in which I hold science and the scientific frame of mind, is the emotional tone which has been adopted in regard to this issue. Scientists are human and it would be foolish to think they are immune to the biases and emotions which affect human reasoning and actions. But a scientist should also know that they can understand their own biases and emotions and set them aside. Dispassionate research is critical if we are to have accurate facts upon which to base sound public policy. Unfortunately, it is apparent to me that many of the scientists involved in this field of research have lost that dispassionate objectivity, which makes their research highly suspect. The agency needs to take a critical look at the process by which climate research is being conducted, including whether funding is being objectively parceled out to examine all theories and whether various studies may have been tainted by researchers a priori beliefs.

The new administration has stated that it wants to restore scientific objectivity to public policy decision-making. There is no better opportunity to do that than this docket item, which is fraught with misleading and misused science. In light of the enormous consequences of action by the EPA, and the inadequate state of knowledge about how climate really works, the only prudent course of action for the agency is to delay any action on this docket and to seek funding to support truly independent and objective research to create more accurate models of likely future outcomes. Until such knowledge is attained, any action is likely to impose unwarranted costs on the American people and lead to actions which may actually exacerbate the effect of climate on our economy and other aspects of our lives. Thank you again for allowing comments and for taking my thoughts into consideration. I would also request that you allow me to testify at any public hearings the agency may hold on this topic. Thank you.

For me, as a farmer, the issue is that global warming is a good thing (if you insist on believing in that way) and facing the inherent uncertainties of weather and climate we might as well look to managing the global climate in a way that is optimal for food production. Crop failures due to summer freezes are not an impossibility and the repercussions of crop failure would be far worse than anything that I’ve seen tossed about by the global doom by warming crowd.

“Now, indeed the AVG temp for may is the highest, at least since their easily accesible records started in 2000. HOWEVER IT”S NOT BECAUSE OF THE HIGH TEMPS. THE HIGH TEMPS ARE STATIC, IT’S BECAUSE OF WARMER LOWS.

I think this goes right in with the theory that clouds are a temperature control mechanism.

Can somebody PLEASE help out with this???????????”

My Reply:
You are right. I did an analysis on this some months ago after examining the CET records back to 1660 and posted it here. Winters are warmer than the LIA (not surprising!) but summers are generally no warmer so the mean average is shifted higher because there are not the lower temperatures to mitgate against them.

If you see this and respond I will see if I can dig the post out.

Tonyb

I submitted my opinion: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064809d4590

If you oppose CO2 regulation for reasons similar to mine, feel free to reference the report I provided as a “supporting document”. That may make the EPA more likely to read it! My position is similar to what you hear from many “deniers” with these twists:
1 IPCC forecasts (4 of them) have all been dramatically wrong. So wrong the implication is: it is impossible to take them seriously.
2 Climate models are compared (quite unfavorably) to the financial models that enabled the recent global financial meltdown.
3 President Eisenhower’s farewell speech warned of two major threats to democracy. One was the famous military-industrial-complex. The other was a scientific-technological elite. (No one remembers that one?) The envisioned threat was scientists (dependent on federal funding) would provide results desired by the government and researchers and politicians would take advantage of the public. This idea (which I have not seen elsewhere in this debate) is developed and documented; global warming is presented as the 1st manifestation of this threat to US democracy.

Anthony, please consider another post on the main page reminding your readers the EPA comment period ends 23 June 2009.

Ron de Haan (19:22:54)
‘The auction raised $104.2 million for energy efficiency, renewable energy and other programs in the 10 participating states, which include Rhode Island, according to RGGI Inc., which administers the program on the states’ behalf.’

Just tack it on to the cost of goods sold.
And you wonder why people and business are moving out of the RGGI area.

old construction worker,

Just wait untill the price hits 35 dollar or more.

NO TAX OR EMISSION RESTRICTIONS ON CO2, THE GAS OF LIFE (PROSPERITY AND FREEDOM)