Response to the SOTU address: Efforts to cap CO2 emissions are adverse to human health and welfare

OPINION By Craig D. Idso, Ph.D.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama advocated an energy policy aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which he claims are causing catastrophic changes to the earth’s climate and “harming western communities.”  In his policy prescription, the president advocates a combination of increased regulation of the energy and transportation industries and more government spending on research designed to bring low-carbon-emitting sources of energy, i.e., so-called renewables, to market. He considers those actions to be the only viable options “leading to a cleaner, safer planet.”

But the president’s concerns for the planet are based upon flawed and speculative science; and his policy prescription is a recipe for failure.

With respect to the science, Obama conveniently fails to disclose the fact that literally thousands of scientific studies have produced findings that run counter to his view of future climate. As just one example, and a damning one at that, all of the computer models upon which his vision is based failed to predict the current plateau in global temperature that has continued for the past 16 years.  That the earth has not warmed significantly during this period, despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, is a major indictment of the models’ credibility in predicting future climate, as well as the president’s assertion that debate on this topic is “settled.”

Numerous other problems with Obama’s model-based view of future climate have been filling up the pages of peer-reviewed science journals for many years now, as evidenced by the recent work of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which published a 1,000-page report in September highlighting a large and well-substantiated alternative viewpoint that contends that rising atmospheric CO2 emissions will have a much smaller, if not negligible, impact on future climate, while generating several biospheric benefits.

Concerning these benefits, atmospheric CO2 is the building block of plant life.  It is used by earth’s plants in the process of photosynthesis to construct their tissues and grow.  And as has been conclusively demonstrated in numerous scientific studies, the more CO2 we put into the air, the better plants grow.  Among other findings, they produce greater amounts of biomass, become more efficient at using water, and are better able to cope with environmental stresses such as pollution and high temperatures.

The implications of these benefits are enormous.  One recent study calculated that over the 50-year period ending in 2001, the direct monetary benefits conferred by the atmospheric CO2 enrichment of the Industrial Revolution on global crop production amounted to a staggering $3.2 trillion. And projecting this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion in crop production benefits between now and 2050.

By ignoring these realities, Obama’s policy prescription is found to be erroneous.  The taxation or regulation of CO2 emissions is an unnecessary and detrimental policy option that should be shunned.  Why would any government advocate to increase regulations and raise energy prices based on flawed computer model projections of climate change that will never come to pass?  Why would any government advance policy that seeks to destroy jobs, rather than to promote them?  Why, in fact, would they actually “bite the hand that feeds them?”

We live in a time when half the global population experiences some sort of limitation in their access to energy, energy that is needed for the most basic of human needs, including the production of clean water, warmth, and light.  One-third of those thus impacted are children.  An even greater portion finds its ranks among the poor.

As a society, it is time to recognize and embrace the truth.  Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  Its increasing concentration only minimally affects earth’s climate, while it offers tremendous benefits to the biosphere.  Efforts to regulate and reduce CO2 emissions will hurt far more than they will help.

Idso is lead editor and chief scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

Source:  The Hill via Bob Ferguson, SPPI.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Cap-and-trade, Carbon dioxide, Opinion, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Response to the SOTU address: Efforts to cap CO2 emissions are adverse to human health and welfare

  1. Robin W says:

    I reality he’s pushing Agenda 21. Further executive orders will be issued before he goes.I wish more folks would read the Agenda 21 document on the UN website as it explains why this nonsense is happening,not just in the USA, but worldwide.

  2. Mike Fox says:

    Always nice to read a clear, cogent comment.

  3. Bob Greene says:

    Dr. Idso, a great response. I’m afraid I’m cynical when it comes to the President’s environmental beliefs. Although he relies on “scientific” models to make his anti-carbon case, I don’t believe he understands or cares about the science nor do I believe he has critically examined the bases for his statements. I rather believe that so-called climate change and carbon pollution is simply a political vehicle. People like you keep me believing it’s worth responding.
    Thanks

  4. Chad Wozniak says:

    The notion that CO2 is a pollutant is truly beyond the pale of any sort of rational discussion.

    It is so grossly absurd to call the No. 2 ingredient of life (only water precedes it in the hierarchy of basic life substances) a pollutant, that doing so demonstrates any number of evils: a deadly misanthropy, even a hatred of life itself; a willingness, even the intention, to do harm, inflict pain, and commit waste; serious mental disorders, including sociopathy and paranoia; an impaired capacity to reason, expressed in an inability to comprehend the obvious, let alone think critically; and the most profound ignorance imaginable.

    All AGW belief is subject to these attributes at least to some degree, as is any other evil messianic ideology, and der Fuehrer epitomizes them.

  5. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Thanks, Dr. Idso. In my calculations in a previous post, I calculated current benefits of the CO2 plant enrichment at a third of a trillion per year. Looking at it, I see that I used information from your website to do my calculations, viz:

    The folks over at CO2 Science have looked at the experimentally measured increase in plant biomass due to a 300 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2. The figures are here, in Table 2. The changes are different for each plant, ranging from about 30% to 60%. So let’s be conservative and use the bottom end, an average 30% increase from a 300 ppmv increase. CO2 levels have gone up about 115 ppmv since pre-industrial times. This means that there has been on the order of a 10% increase in the annual production due to CO2.

    Now, how much is this 10% increase in global plant production worth? Well, the marvelous FAO database called FAOSTAT puts the value of the annual plant production at $3.3 trillion dollars. Assuming that a 10% increase from some smaller value is due to increased CO2, that puts the annual value of this one single solitary social benefit of CO2 at about $300 billion dollars.

    So yes, our different calculations come up with similar answers—and that’s just from plants. As I said in closing my previous post:

    Note that I’ve only considered one single social benefit, the increase in plant production. Since their claimed costs relate to claimed future temperature rises, how about the benefit of increased ice-free days at the northern ports if temperatures do rise? And the longer growing seasons if temperatures increase? How much are they worth worldwide? They likely have included the extra costs from air-conditioning to fight the fabled future heat, but have they included the reduction in winter heating? I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point. The whole thing [assigning costs and benefits to CO2] is an exercise in fantasy, shifting sands with no clear answers.

    Finally, my thanks for all that you and your family have done in this long, protracted struggle for scientific transparency and honesty. Your web site has been one of my main resources for years, it’s a grand compendium of the research.

    All the best,

    w.

  6. Werner Brozek says:

    Bob Greene says:
    January 30, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    I’m afraid I’m cynical when it comes to the President’s environmental beliefs.

    Do you recall Obama’s statements about the warming over the last 5 and 10 years and how Lord Monckton proved him wrong? And do you know how his people could not back up his statements on this matter? I do not think it is a coincidence that global warming was not mentioned.
    Of course, a little help from above such as the polar vortex may have helped as well.☺

  7. Churning says:

    Well stated and I would like to echo the comments above about your website and all your good work. The POTUS is “out to lunch” with regard to science in general, but especially when it comes to “climate change.”

  8. Don Bennett says:

    It’s not about the climate or saving humanity from the scourges of the weather. It’s all about the control of the population; where they live, where and how they travel, etc. The climatists are misanthropist pure and simple.

    I’ve been reading and contributing to the Idso’s http://www.CO2Science.org website for years and it is my go to site if I need a study on just about anything climate related. Thanks [to] them for all their great work.

  9. tlarremore says:

    Reblogged this on Head Space and commented:
    Calling out the procto-scientist

  10. Don Bennett says:

    Geez, I wish I could proofread. “Thanks to them for all their great work.” , it should have read.

  11. GeologyJim says:

    Dear Dr. Idso and family –

    Thank you all for your long-term efforts to keep the focus on factual data about paleoclimate and the positive effects of CO2 on plant physiology.

    I have also relied extensively on your databases and reference compilations to clarify my arguments and to rebut nonsense proclamations of warming-alarmists.

    As a geologist, I’ve always known that alarmism about CO2-driven global temperatures is bogus – – because earth has experienced far greater atmospheric conditions in the past – – and always recovered. Climatic tipping points do not exist, period.

    Thanks for your persistence and integrity

  12. TomE says:

    POTUS comments in the SOTU were all politically driven. 5 years ago we were optimistic about the change in leadership in the country and the promises made. Now we know the promises were hollow and the implementation destructive, whether it was “green” energy, think Solyndra, or the ACA. I, like 90% of the country, did not watch the SOTU and will not watch a future one from this president.

  13. Box of Rocks says:

    Co2 sequestration nothing like wasting energy on a non solution to a non problem.

    Once the energy is expended it is gone ,,,,

    And to think these fools think!

  14. imoira says:

    Thank you Dr. Idso. Not only do I visit your site but also I bought your book The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment. Good stuff! – both the book and the CO2.

  15. imoira says:

    Robin W.: I also wish that people would people would take a look at Agenda 21. I didn’t watch the State of the Ruin address but went to a Mises Canada meet where the subject of discussion was none other than Agenda 21.

  16. Brian H says:

    Efforts to regulate and reduce CO2 emissions will hurt far more than they will help.

    Since they won’t “help” at all, you can just omit that last phrase entirely.

  17. imoira says:

    Box of Rocks @ 8:16
    I think that Winnie the Pooh thinks, thinks thinks more than Obama does.

  18. Tom J says:

    Chad Wozniak
    January 30, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    Well said.

  19. John F. Hultquist says:

    TomE says:
    January 30, 2014 at 8:15 pm
    “ . . . we were optimistic about the change in leadership . . .

    we” ?

  20. Santa Baby says:

    It becomes increasingly clearer why social democratic Norway gave the Nobel peace prize to Obama in 2009?
    “”extraordinary efforts” to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

    “Obama is the fourth US president to have been awarded a Nobel Prize (after Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter, with Vice President Al Gore also being a recipient, with Carter and Gore’s honors happening after leaving office).”

    ?

  21. SAMURAI says:

    Obama’s assertions and “solutions” are illogical and counter productive.

    Even IF CAGW’s ECS projections were actually greater than 2C, any honest cost/benefit analysis shows the economic devastation of CO2 taxes, CO2 sequestration, draconian CO2 EPA emission regulation and expensive/inefficient alternative energy wind/solar/bio-fuel projects, would far exceed the projected negative climatic impacts.

    If politicians, environmentalists and scientists truly believed CO2 was a problem, then they would advocate the rapid development/deployment of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which would generate energy 10 TIMES cheaper than their crazy solar/wind/bio-fuel solutions and would generate ZERO CO2 and ZERO amounts of other REAL pollutants like SO2, NO2, O3, CO, Pb, Hg, etc.

    In my opinion, when China’s first test LFTR goes online next year, the pressure on Western countries to quickly adopt LFTR energy will make the whole CAGW hypothesis moot, since LFTRs are the cheapest, cleanest, safest and most abundant form of energy that exists and failure to catch up to China’s LFTR program would be economic suicide.

    It’ll be interesting how this all plays out. Regardless, CAGW is a dead issue for two reasons: 1) because the CAGW hypothesis is disconfirmed by empirical evidence OR 2) CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced as LFTRs replace fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy and hydrocarbons.

    Either way, CAGW toast.

  22. Richard G says:

    Glad to hear from Dr. Idso here at WUWT. Thanks for all your work on the Biology of CO2.

  23. rogerthesurf says:

    ” Why would any government advance policy that seeks to destroy jobs, rather than to promote them? Why, in fact, would they actually “bite the hand that feeds them?”,
    Exactly the same thoughts crossed my mind as I began to see my city destroyed using the excuse of these terrible earthquakes.
    Today I took my aunt to a large site in the CBD. This has been created by the absolute flattening of a number of city blocks. This is where the new sports stadium and complex that no one wants will be situated. The land all compulsorily ‘purchased’ by the government at firesale prices.
    Even my 85 yr old Aunt wondered where the parking would be. The site is large but not big enough to accommodate parking for more than 5000 visitors.
    Well this an Agenda21 complying plan. There will be no parking. Because its in the CBD, everyone will be within walking distance. In my view the tax payers and rate payers are going to pay for an empty stadium and massive traffic jambs.
    Of course there are now doubts about whether there are enough funds. Surprise surprise, there is a disaster recovery going on, money is short as are outside investors.
    Watch this space, will this agenda 21 experiment work?
    One thing is certain, overall this will destroy jobs.
    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  24. bobl says:

    Dr Idso,
    I would go further to say that the President’s actions in attempting to reduce Carbon Dioxide endanger the American People and may not be constitutional. There is an implied right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the declaration of independence and the president by attempting to reduce the food supply and reduce the temperature so more “Polar Vortexes” freeze America (after all, the ultimate aim is to return to the Pre-industrial CO2 level of the Little Ice Age) is putting American in danger of death by starvation. Attempting to drive the climate back towards a temperature only 0.7 degrees below now (not much margin there) which killed half of Europe is dangerously foolish. By his action he is attempting to deprive certain people of the right to life.

  25. Malcolm says:

    Whilst I agre with the general thrust of Dr Idso’s post, quoting the value of plant production does not actually prove that the quantity has in fact increased. Better to quote figures in tons or yields per hectare. The last is preferable since the tonnage may increase simply by putting more land under the plough.
    By either of my preferred measures, 2013 was a record year for grain production.

  26. Down to Earth says:

    If you really want learn about CO2 effects on plant life then just Google “pot-growers dry-ice CO2 augmentation”. Those guys have it figured out how to determine ppm for a room size, best ways to sublime CO2, when-times of the day/night, how to regulate humidity/heat, how much is too much-for the plants & themselves(one guy sublimed a 10lbs. block in a sealed 10×20 room while he was in it. How much yeast, sugar, water, dry-ice to make a bubbler, toxic acidity of bubbler water and when to change it. Turnover rates from CO2 to O2.
    My point is this, these guys see it just as beneficial, profitable, and safe to handle as fertilizers or weed-killers. Care and knowledge is needed but nothing alarming or unmanageable. Something may be learned from their experiences.

  27. “President Obama advocated an energy policy aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which he claims are causing catastrophic changes to the earth’s climate and “harming western communities.” 
    Presumably this policy will work for everyone on the planet, not just Western Communities.
    Knowledge of basic science is clearly lacking!

  28. Peter Miller says:

    Somewhere around 150ppm CO2 in our atmosphere, most plant life starts dying out. During the last ice age, which ended 10-12,000 years ago, CO2 levels dropped to around 180ppm,

    We are lucky to be here.

  29. Barry Sheridan says:

    It does seem safe to say that fundamental to our nature is the need to believe in something, that something having consistently acted as a foundation to support a hierarchy. History is replete with illustrations of how this arrangement has allowed the powerful to impose their own vision on everyone else, expanding its wealth via effective economic and social structures that certainly in most cases did provide benefits to a widening pool of people until, alas, a rot sets in and the good gets overtaken by the bad. Such is the case here where after a century or so of vitally important economic and social improvement for the masses a disapproving elite wants to impose unnecessary artificial limits. At the head of this stands the current POTUS who through the use of Executive Orders intends to constrain what he cannot achieve by rational argument. What is curious is why he intends to eschew the real solutions inherent in advanced nuclear energy, for as we have ample proof, the pursuit of so called green technologies is simply a pathway to waste valuable public resource, not avenues to provide a decent chance for all the world’s people. Regrettably, the realities are that Mr Obama in not the far sighted leader America and the world so desperately leads, but is instead a man over-burdened by negative visions, this is hugely disappointing given the importance of American leadership to the world.

  30. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Good to see someone cheer-leading for CO2.

    Myself, I’m hoping for a 500ppm atmosphere. Should be very productive…

  31. John Law says:

    Will the benefits of increased plant productivity be realised, when the “Ecoloons” have covered vast swathes of agricultural land with solar panels?

  32. Robin W says:

    A Lead author of Agenda 21 was the now disgraced Maurice Strong who famously said ” CO2 is the exhaust of Capitalism which must be destroyed ” Obama is just following this aim. CO2 is the elixir of life and certainly not a pollutant. Agenda 21 is here in local government under the guise of ICLEI. Just look up your local Council’s involvement with this UN Body which is Agenda 21 under another name. Wolves in sheep’s clothing which is the Fabian Socialists’ logo….need I say more?

  33. markstoval says:

    “But the president’s concerns for the planet are based upon flawed and speculative science; and his policy prescription is a recipe for failure.”

    The “science” is so flawed and speculative that one hates to hear it called science. The president is most likely not really a believer in “CO2 will kill us all” but rather a true believer in control by government; and there is nothing like “saving the world” to justify ever more governmental controls.

    Mother nature is running an experiment on planet earth just now. It is not over, but the preliminary results show that you can raise CO2 concentrations from 360 ppm or so up to 400 ppm or so and the global average temperature remains flat. As for any “tipping point”, we have been told by science that the concentration of CO2 500 million years ago was 20 times the value we have today and yet the earth did not experience “thermogedon” (run-away heat buildup).

    Cheap energy leads to the poorest among us living much better in many ways. The president does not care about the poor, especially those in the 3rd world. They need cheap coal and coal fired electricity generation plants (or cheap gas) to join the technologically advanced nations.

    There was never any credible scientific evidence (as verses the output of “models”) of any catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. In fact, without “adjustments” by the various data keeping agencies we would be talking about the 20 year span of global cooling and what that means for our future.

  34. Alan the Brit says:

    Do we not need more atmospheric CO2 in a cooling atmosphere to maintain crop production, otherwise many of the poor may well starve to death! Oh hang on a minute, that is what the elite left want isn’t it, a reduced population of the Earth. How will history record these elites/Greens/Environmentalists? Will they be placed alongside Gengis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, in light of the open slaughter of billions by starvation to ease their consciences? Much as Numberwatch provides the definition of Sustainability, an environmental utopia built on millions of African corpses!

  35. SAMURAI says:

    bobl says:
    January 30, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    “I would go further to say that the President’s actions in attempting to reduce Carbon Dioxide endanger the American People and may not be constitutional.”

    ===============================
    You are absolutely correct that Obama’s actions are entirely unconstitutional.

    Under the enumerated powers granted to the Federal government in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Federal Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches have absolutely no power or authority on environmental issues.

    Therefore, under the rights granted in Amendments 9 and 10, any power not specifically enumerated to the Federal government is retained by the individual States or to the people to adjudicate.

    Accordingly, environmental rules and regulations should be controlled and enforced by each individual state as they see fit, and not by Federal government fiat.

    If the Constitution was actually protected and defended (as all Presidents, Congressmen and Justices swear an oath to fulfill), each state would be free to implement environmental laws which serve the needs of the citizen’s of that state.

    States with very strict environmental laws may have pristine air and water but less manufacturing, while states with more pragmatic environmental laws would have less pristine air and water, but stronger economies. Inter-state competition would drive advances in environmental technology as states compete for manufacturing, while trying to create cleaner environments.

    Now, often draconian EPA rules and regulations are forced on all 50 states, regardless of the negative economic consequences, and often with little or no discernible environmental improvement.

    Our Founding Fathers established this type of decentralized government as they foresaw the types of problems we’re now facing with CAGW advocacy.

  36. Gail Combs says:

    Robin W says: @ January 30, 2014 at 7:23 pm
    In reality he’s pushing Agenda 21….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Couldn’t agree more (but everyone here already knows that :>) )

    Thank you Dr. Idso, and the rest of the brave scientists at the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change for sticking your necks out. People like you give me hope for the future.

    The Hill has another article of interest: Tax uncertainty hurting alternative energy (I nearly lost my breakfast)

  37. Derek Wood says:

    As a layman, I don’t find it difficult to understand the actual significance the estimate of CO2 being 400ppmv. it’s .04%! it’s a tiny amount. I read in another article that human produced CO2 accounts for around 3% of that 400ppm. Can anyone confirm that this is the case? And if this IS the case, how can anyone think that men can significantly reduce this 400ppm by curtailing our use of fossil fuels? I don’t believe that CO2 is having any significant effect on the temperature of the planet, but even if I did, I can also see that curtailing fossil fuel use would be futile; even if every nation on earth did it!

    So if the figures I’m quoting are anything close to what is actually occurring, Why can’t everyone see what is apparent to a layman like me?

  38. Gail Combs says:

    Peter Miller says: @ January 31, 2014 at 12:26 am

    Somewhere around 150ppm CO2 in our atmosphere, most plant life starts dying out. During the last ice age, which ended 10-12,000 years ago, CO2 levels dropped to around 180ppm,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    150ppm CO2 is WAY TO LOW!

    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California. The elevation of the La Brea tar pits is 164′ (50 m)) and the study uses ice core CO2 measurements from Taylor Dome and Vostok. See what the plants had to say about the CO2 levels in the past. CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata

    There is a reason C4 plants (weeds and grasses) developed, CO2 starvation makes a less optimal photosynthetic pathway competitive with C3 when there is less rain.

    Although the climastrologists have re-written science to say plants could live in an atmosphere of only 180 ppm to match their revised ice core data, link earlier work, now gone from the internet, had a lower limit of 200 – 220 ppm

    A more realistic lower limit can be deduced from this field study of wheat (C3).
    “The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034

    The extreme lower limit of 200 ppm can also be found in green house studies:

    CO2 depletion
    Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant [C3] canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusionSource

    In other words our present day CO2 levels are still close to ‘Starvation levels’ for plants and during the next glaciation, whenever it comes, the corresponding reduction in CO2 levels will be very dangerous to plant life.

  39. hunter says:

    Social madness does not care about the failure of the underlying premise until far too late. Tulip bulbs sold for as much as a nice house at the peak of the madness. CO2 obsession is no different in how it clouds otherwise intelligent minds.

  40. bobl says:

    @Derek Wood

    Humans probably produce about 3 percent of the total emission (flux) of CO2 at any given time, thus you can probably say that human CO2 is less than about 3% of that 0.04% or 0.00012% of the atmosphere.

    Warmists say that we are however creating the imbalance between emission and sinks of about 1.5 % per annum which allows CO2 to accumulate. Now that’s probably partly true assuming CO2 continues to accelerate, if however we stopped increasing emission every year the biosphere (sinks) would grow to equilibriate in a few years and CO2 rise would stop – there is lots of argument around here on exactly how long that takes to happen, though “thousands of years” which many warmists say, is generally not among the answers you find here. I think based on the fact that the biosphere grows to consume 50 % of mans excess in the first year, that the equiblibrium time is only 5 years, others have different estimates, generally between 10 and 50 years.

  41. Gail Combs says:

    SAMURAI says: @ January 31, 2014 at 3:17 am
    On trampling the Constitution:

    The biggest mistake made in the USA was not giving US citizens “Standing” so that we as citizens can not go after our elected officials and bring them to trial. We must lobby our Congressman to do so. (Fat lot of good that does)
    “The Congress shall have the Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, …” is the applicable sentence indicating that The Congress is the place where treason is determined and decided. Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason and its punishment.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason…

    There is a lot of scuttlebutt about the Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 turning that provision of the Constitution on its head.

    (I am not going to try and read those laws. I will leave that as an exercise for the WUWT readers. :>) …Science papers are bad enough. I hate slugging through hundreds of pages of legalize and yes I have done it. It is why I support the READ THE BILL LAW. If Congress votes on a bill they should be made to read the darn thing first.)
    ….

    Then there is the matter of ‘Standing’ You can not go after someone unless you can prove you have been materially harmed (This is why Mikey Mann’s lawsuits should have been tossed on a dung heap.)

    …The standing rules apply to actions brought in federal courts, and they have no direct application to actions brought in state courts.

    Citizen Suits.—Persons do not have standing to sue to enforce a constitutional provision when all they can show or claim is that they have an interest or have suffered an injury that is shared by all members of the public. [Think about that. If all of us are harmed we have no standing. What a deal!] Thus, a group of persons suing as citizens to litigate a contention that membership of Members of Congress in the military reserves constituted a violation of Article I,� 6, cl. 2, was denied standing. “The only interest all citizens share in the claim advanced by respondents is one which presents injury in the abstract…. [The] claimed nonobservance [of the clause], standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.”346

    Taxpayer Suits.—Save for a narrow exception, standing is also lacking when a litigant attempts to sue to contest governmental action that he claims injures him as a taxpayer….
    http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/18-standing.html

    Last is the problem that you need the governments permission to sue the government:

    Injury Claims Against Federal, State, or Local Governments
    Sovereign immunity is a judicial doctrine that prevents the government or its political subdivisions, departments, and agencies from being sued without its consent. The doctrine stems from the ancient English principle that the monarch [i.e., King] can do no wrong.

    Historically, in America, you could not make a claim against the government if you were injured by a government employee in the course of his work. The law was rigid and the rule that ‘the king can do no wrong’ prevented any recovery for damages caused by the ‘king’s servants.’

    Over the years this rule of law has been changed by the Congress, Legislatures and the Courts. Presently, you may sue the State for injuries you may suffer, but there are many exceptions and limitations with complex procedures and time limits. This right to bring a lawsuit is only granted by ‘permission’ of the governing bodies. This ‘permission’ to sue is granted by specific State and Federal Statutes, and the procedure to be followed is strict. Unless you follow the procedures you do not have ‘permission’ to bring a lawsuit against the Federal, State or Municipal Governments….

    Sort of ties our hands doesn’t it? Especially when elections are determined by the MSM propaganda machine and money from corporations and individuals. Some time look at the number of law offices that ‘Donate’ to campaign funds. Can you say Money Laundering? Also just how many companies does Warren Buffet control via Berkshire Hathaway? See (WIKI for a listing) each of those companies can contribute $32,400 to a national party committee per calendar year. Sure adds up doesn’t it? And that is just ONE person.

    (Berkshire Hathaway has significant slice of the Coca-Cola Company in case you were wondering about that Polar Bear.)

  42. Gail Combs says:

    bobl says: @ January 31, 2014 at 4:43 am

    …Warmists say that we are however creating the imbalance between emission and sinks of about 1.5 % per annum which allows CO2 to accumulate. Now that’s probably partly true assuming CO2 continues to accelerate, if however we stopped increasing emission every year the biosphere (sinks) would grow to equilibriate in a few years and CO2 rise would stop…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is not necessarily true. The Ice core data shows an 800 year lag. 800 years ago was the Medieval Optimum so we may be seeing the CO2 from that time period. :>)

    Why do you think Mikey Mann and The Team™ wanted to get rid of the Medieval Optimum? They could have just flattened it a tad like they did the 1930s instead of scrubbing it completely from history.

    (As usual one of my comments link has gotten booted into the deep ocean by WordPress, mods.)

  43. Vince Causey says:

    It’s ironic, is it not, that people like Stern and producing reports telling us that the cost of CO2 mitigation, as astronomical as it is, is cheaper than doing nothing. An yet, the reality is that far from bringing net costs, CO2 brings net benefits.

    For mitigation to make any sense, the costs would have to fall – past zero, and keep falling, all the way to minus $300bn per year.

  44. Derek Wood says:

    @bobl:

    That’s a good effort, I’m almost there. Thanks

  45. Jimbo says:

    For any Warmists who disbelieve that co2 is not a plant fertilizer read these paper abstracts here.

  46. Tom G(ologist) says:

    Dr. Idso:

    Thank you for your post and continuing efforts with the NGIPCC. I have one little thing I want to bring up to all of us. “Beliefs” or “viewpoints” are NOT the basis of our position on climate change. We rely on evidence and we make supported conclusions based on our observations. You state that: “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which published a 1,000-page report in September highlighting a large and well-substantiated alternative viewpoint that contends that rising atmospheric CO2 emissions will have a much smaller, if not negligible, impact on future climate, while generating several biospheric benefits

    I respectfully suggest that it is not an alternative viewpoint – it is the considered conclusion of the scientists involved based on the data and observations.

    We will all be better off if we move away from any reference to “alternative explanation” “beliefs” “viewpoints” or other terms which imply subjectivity or judgment on our collective part. Our conclusions are empirical, experimentally-based and founded on data. People who “believe” something do so with the same cognitive processes by which they are religious (if they are).

    In terms of climate science, we can only “accept” a conclusion if it is consistent with all data and observations. “Belief” has no place in our discussions – nor does “an alternative viewpoint”.

    Otherwise, thanks again for your post.

  47. Scotty the Red says:

    If CO2 is so bad, why is there not a push to nuclear power?. It’s zero emission and with proper siting/management, chances for disaster are small.

    2cents worth.

  48. Jimbo says:

    Scotty the Red says:
    January 31, 2014 at 9:03 am

    If CO2 is so bad, why is there not a push to nuclear power?. It’s zero emission and with proper siting/management, chances for disaster are small.

    2cents worth.

    Co2 reduction is not their aim. De-industrialization, de-population and global control is their game. Co2 is just another new tool in their arsenal of horse manure.
    http://green-agenda.com/
    http://green-agenda.com/turningpoint.html

  49. Gail Combs says:

    Tom G(ologist) says: @ January 31, 2014 at 8:57 am

    …. I have one little thing I want to bring up to all of us. “Beliefs” or “viewpoints” are NOT the basis of our position on climate change. ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That needs to be emphasized. The real world data does not support the CAGW conjecture.

  50. Gail Combs says:

    Scotty the Red says: @ January 31, 2014 at 9:03 am

    If CO2 is so bad, why is there not a push to nuclear power?…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    This comment from a nuclear protester sums up the Luddites (anti-technoloy types) position. It also explains why there is a hard core group who do not care anything about ‘CAGW Science’ as long as it furthers the goal of crippling economic development and stops human advancement in its tracks. (Obama’s ‘Science’ Czar, John Holdern is one of these Luddites link ) It also explains why NASA’s goal is now Muslim outreach.

    As a fifty plus year science fiction addict I find this deliberate crippling of mankind’s future …sad.

    …I had the opportunity a few days ago of talking to a bright young anti-nuclear activist about the way Fukushima has helped the anti-nuclear cause….

    ….But I was completely taken off-guard by what he told me right off the bat. He actually *agreed* that the seriousness of the accident was greatly overstated and that the health effects were likely te turn out to be as small as to be nonexistent.

    My response was, of course, to ask how he could align this with the scaremongering and misinformation being spread by the anti-nuclear parties. He then explained to me that the facts about nuclear energy, it’s safety and even it’s positive economic effects were not relevant. He said that scaremongering and misinformation where the appropriate and moral strategy of anti-nuclear groups.

    He said that the ideology of sustainability and anti-nuclearism was so important for the future of humanity that facts should be of no concern. Moreover: if the invention of fake information (i.e. lies) about nuclear energy could bring closer the day of elimination of nuclear power from the earth, then that meant that producing and spreading fake information should (and indeed was) a top priority of all anti-nuclear groups.

    So then I asked him why he thought that it was moral and defensible to lie to people. He said that people in general cannot and do not base their views and opinions on facts, so the value of facts versus fiction was relative. In order to bring about the desired outcome (i.e. a nuclear free world) fiction could be (and in fact was, in his opinion) a much better way to do it then facts.

    Finally, I asked him why he thought nuclear power should be eliminated even after he told me that he agreed that nuclear power was good for the economy. His reply was simply that an additional goal of the antinuclear movement (as far as he was concerned) was in fact the reduction of economic activity, since according to him, the greatest cause of ecological damage was increased economic activity.

    …., I told him that a reduction in economic activity would also reduce his own prospects for a high quality of life and prosperity. But he didn’t agree with me. He said that further economic expansion was of no use to him, because he believed in living a simple life.….

    He said that economic expansion was bad for people because it distracted from the true quality of life, which consists of community and social activities that are mostly threatened by improved prosperity, rather than improved by it…..
    http://atomicinsights.com/conversation-with-an-anti-society-antinuclear-activist

  51. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Gail Combs –

    You have provided an example – a horrific, frightening example – of the opposition of ideology to morality, to human well-being, to knowledge and understanding. The scariest part of it is that this is a widespread mindset, not merely the mien of a few oddballs. One has to wonder how to effectively counter it – these people cannot be reached by reason, logic or evidence of any sort. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that it must simply be physically suppressed with all necessary force; that people who act out this sort of “thought” process should be treated as enemies in war and dealt with as one deals with enemy soldiers on the battlefront. How are these people any different from the Nazis or other such murderous and destructive adversaries we have faced?

  52. Gail Combs says:

    Chad Wozniak says: @ January 31, 2014 at 10:44 am

    …. The scariest part of it is that this is a widespread mindset, not merely the mien of a few oddballs. One has to wonder how to effectively counter it….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I agree that it is wide spread. I know of a college professor that spreads this nonsense and expects his own daughter to live a more impoverished life than he. Ironiclly he had just purchased a brand new SUV when he was explaining how his daughter ‘Understood’ all this. She then chatted about buying a horse when she grew up.

    Of course this is the type of mindset you want in your serfs. Notice how these same people have no trouble with the lavish lifestyles of Al Gore or Maurice Strong.

    A few years of this is the only cure I can think of IMAGE.

    Otherwise it looks as if we are in the eighth step of Alexander Tytler Cycle 200 year civilization cycle rapidly headed for number nine.

    Alexander Tytler Cycle:

    The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

    1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
    2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
    3. From courage to liberty;
    4. From liberty to abundance;
    5. From abundance to selfishness;
    6. From selfishness to complacency;
    7. From complacency to apathy;
    8. From apathy to dependence;
    9. From dependence back into bondage.

    http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/politpub/alexander-tytler-cycle

  53. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Gail Combs –
    Your IMAGE could just as well be the slaves on antebellum plantations in the South, as peasants in Europe. Ironic that a black man should be so vociferous an advocate of slavery. But then, unlike most African Americans, he isn’t a descendant of slaves.

  54. Gareth Phillips says:

    I see Moncktons liege Lord has pronounced on whether we should take action on CO2. He must support support him in his battles or the Tower beckons I fear. Many Lords have had negative experiences in that Fort of infamy, so my advice is to bend the knee or ditch the title. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/31/prince-charles-climate-change_n_4702914.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

  55. ntesdorf says:

    Many thanks to Dr. Idso for his great article. President Obama seems to understand nothing about climate or science, and cares even less. His beliefs are based on political expediency and political profit. He is incapable of critically examining the evidence. He believes that ‘Climate Change’ (so-called) and ‘carbon pollution’ (so-called) is simply a political vehicle.
    Dr. Idso, you keep us struggling against this idiocy.
    Thanks again for your work.

  56. Richard Barraclough says:

    …… “are adverse to” …………. ???? Or is that normal in US English?

  57. Gail Combs says:

    Chad Wozniak says: @ January 31, 2014 at 12:16 pm
    Remember who the slavers were. http://www.kenyaconstitution.org/history/early-kenya-history/

  58. brokenyogi says:

    Despite all the right-wing distrust and even hatred of Obama, his energy policy does not match the lip service he is paying to climate advocates. The actual policy he is recommending is increased reliance of fracking and natural gas for lowering CO2 emissions, and not on capping or taxing carbon emissions. And, scientific research on alternative energies, which is a very good thing to pursue. If there’s anything unsound in his policy, it’s the continuation of subsidies for inefficient alternative technologies, but that’s a pretty small proportion of his overall policy. If the only thing one concentrates on is a few rhetorical bows to the climate advocacy folks, you miss the real story of what Obama is doing, and not doing.

  59. Sisi says:

    “With respect to the science, Obama conveniently fails to disclose the fact that literally thousands of scientific studies have produced findings that run counter to his view of future climate. As just one example,”

    Opinion piece… Still, Obama fails to disclose,; the thousands of scientific studies. Anyway, although Idso fails to show how he got hold of the thousands of scientific studies that were to be disclosed, he brings up one (! 1!) example that he thinks opposes Obama. That’s all?

  60. Sisi says:

    hmm.. formatting errors… the “/b>” has to be “”

  61. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients of life.

  62. Gail Combs says:

    brokenyogi says: @ January 31, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Despite all the right-wing distrust and even hatred of Obama, his energy policy does not match the lip service he is paying to climate advocates. The actual policy he is recommending is increased reliance of fracking and natural gas for lowering CO2 emissions, and not on capping or taxing carbon emissions. And, scientific research on alternative energies, which is a very good thing to pursue….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That was the Game Plan from the beginning!

    Remember that GE’s CEO Jeff Immelt is Obama’s Jobs Czar.

    Lessons from the global warming industry

    Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room…. It proved to be an eye-opening experience that didn’t last much beyond my expressing concern about this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support….

    The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded….

    And here is Shell Oil right smack in the middle of it. Don’t forget, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia headed by Dr Phil Jones, was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum.

    Ged Davis when VP of Shell Oil wrote scenarios for the IPCC. The Ged Davis E-mail contains a bunch of scenarios probably used as starting points for some of the climate models. This is part of one of the Scenarios – Sustainable Development later called Agenda 21.

    4. Sustainable Development (B1)

    The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality. Successful forms of governance allow many problems which are currently hard or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of government and other organisations. Solutions reflect a wide stakeholder dialogue leading to consent on international environmental and social agreements. This is coupled with bottom-up solutions to problems, which reflect wide success in getting broad-based support within communities.

    The concerns over global sustainable development, expressed in a myriad of environmental and social issues, results in the eventual successful management of the interaction between human activities and the biosphere. While no explicit climate policy is undertaken, other kinds of initiatives lead to lower energy use, and clean energy systems, which significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Besides cleaning up air quality, there is emphasis on improving the availability and quality of water…

    4.2 Scenarios

    4.21 Energy Resources/Technology
    Energy efficiency innovations, and successful institutional innovations disseminating their use, result in much lower levels of energy use relative to historic patterns. The forward-looking nature of societal planning results in relatively smooth transitions to alternative energy systems as conventional oil and gas resources dwindle in availability. There is major use of unconventional natural gas as fuel supply during the transition, but the major push is towards renewable resources such as solar and wind. The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems.

    Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:

    1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries.

    2. A more rapid development of renewables, replacing coal and oil; the bulk of the remaining energy coming from natural gas (scenario B1R).

    GED R. DAVIS
    VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
    SHELL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

    Ged Davis is Vice President, Global Business Environment in Shell International Limited and head of Shell’s Scenarios Team. He has been a scenario practitioner for over 20 years working in the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, engaged in the building and use of scenarios at the country, industry and global level….

    From 1997 to 2000 he was facilitator and a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Emissions scenarios and in 1996/97 was Director of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Global Scenarios.

    He has postgraduate degrees in economics/engineering from the London School of Economics and Stanford University, California and graduated in Mining Engineering at Imperial College, London….
    http://www.igu.org/html/WGC_pdffiles/CV_SR1_Davis_E.pdf

    Looks like Obama is right on target doesn’t it.

    Aren’t you happy to find out Obama is taking his marching orders from a Shell Oil VP? :>)

  63. RACookPE1978 says:

    Sisi says:
    January 31, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    “With respect to the science, Obama conveniently fails to disclose the fact that literally thousands of scientific studies have produced findings that run counter to his view of future climate. As just one example …

    Yes, but only ONE example to all that is needed to prove a over-reaching, false conclusion by a politician or so-called “scientist” out to preserve his reputation and get keeping his grants and government-funds coming is ONE fact. ONE paper. ONE statement.

    And, at Idso’s website, there are over 1000 papers from peer-reviewed literature showing each of his statements are correct:
    The Medieval Warming Period was a a worldwide period of warmer climates than the Little Ice Age and many showing temperatures warmer than today’s Modern Warming Period,
    and
    The positive growth and positive contributions from an increase i nCO2 to plants, food, fodder, fuel, farming, and fertilizers around the globe. Usually, you should allow a +12% to +27% INCREASE in all green plants worldwide, depending on species and altitude.

    To summarize, there are NO negatives to an increase in CO2, NO negatives to any increase in worldwide temperatures up to +3-4 degrees from today’s world. But billions of deaths that YOU want to cause by YOUR exaggerated and propagandized fears of reducing energy costs worldwide.

  64. Gail Combs says:

    Sisi says: @ January 31, 2014 at 5:05 pm
    ….although Idso fails to show how he got hold of the thousands of scientific studies that were to be disclosed, he brings up one (! 1!) example that he thinks opposes Obama. That’s all?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No

    He expects readers here to have looked at his last article: Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’ which contains a link to the PDF of the entire report.

    (Mods my reply to brokenyogi seems to have disappeared down a natural gas well.)

  65. brokenyogi says:

    Gail: “Aren’t you happy to find out Obama is taking his marching orders from a Shell Oil VP? :>)”

    I wouldn’t call them marching orders, but he’s following a fairly good line on actual energy policy, and I’m happy about that.

  66. Ed Mertin says:

    Light bulb law passed by 2006 lame duck GOP congress and signed by Dubya Bush.
    You need to go back to Grover Cleveland to find a POTUS as reluctant to use Executive Orders as Obama, GOP just lies.
    But you all rarely look anything up.
    I can’t wait for Chris Christie’s roast, even though it won’t be because all the speakers will be under oath. Wait, it might be funny if the recurring joke is… “Under the advice of counsel, I refuse to answer as my 5th amendment right.”
    Who’s starting the Chris Christie resignation day pool? I got April 1st!

  67. Ed Mertin says:

    Ban government officials and staff from ever working for government contractors and most of our problems will go away.

  68. nevket240 says:

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/30-1

    Headsup Anthony.
    regards from a lovely warm Australia.

  69. SAMURAI says:

    Gail Combs says:
    January 31, 2014 at 5:14 am
    SAMURAI says: @ January 31, 2014 at 3:17 am
    On trampling the Constitution:

    The biggest mistake made in the USA was not giving US citizens “Standing” so that we as citizens can not go after our elected officials and bring them to trial.

    =====================
    The issue of “standing” was discussed during the Constitutional Convention, but it was decided such a right granted to the people would potentially inundate the government with frivolous lawsuits and grind the wheels of government to a halt…..

    Hmmmm… Grind the wheels of government to a halt…. I love the sound of that…

    Gail, I think you’re onto something!!!…LOL!

    Seriously, though, the Constitution as originally intended/written, was designed to cage the Leviathian through the constructs of: checks and balances, judicial review, enumerated powers, impeachment proceedings, Bill of Rights, etc.,

    Unfortunately, about the only place the Constitution still exists is in an hermetically sealed case in the Library of Congress…..

    To fix this mess, I think Article 5 powers should be envoked and a State Constitutional Convension should be convened, where Constitutional amendments were added to greatly curtail/redefine Federal powers and authority and expand/recover state rights.

    I also think the concept of both State and jury nullification against laws deemed unconstitutional should be widely exercised.

    If these efforts fail, and the Federal Governemt continues to disregard the Constitution and exceed/flaunt its Constitutional, then the last option would be state secession.

    It’s really getting to that point.

  70. Lady Life Grows says:

    Idso, you need to post here much more often. Every other year is not going to cut it. There is a “planet to save”–by which everybody means the biosphere. You know what CO2 really does for the biosphere.

    Of all the howling on all sides of the “climate” debate, one item is rock solid, and that is Keeling’s Mauna Loa carbon dioxide graph. SOMEthing really is going on. That graph just does not look natural, and I believe it is not. The first thing you think of is fossil fuels–and Of Course that would cause a rise. A few months ago, a WUWT commenter posted calculations indicating that the total cO2 released by burning fossils accounts for 20% of the rise. So something else is also going on.

    One day, I read a permaculture article advocating healing agriculture as the best way to “sequester” the terrible carbon dioxide. And it hit me like a sledgehammer: Monsanto and other chemical agriculture are well known for stripping the soil, killing earthworms and so on. The decay of the soil organisms would have to result in carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere.

    The claimed amount of warming from carbon dioxide would be trivial and beneficial even if it were occurring–but something else is also going on. We are disturbing the water balances of the terrestrial Earth, causing deserts to form and causing extremes of temperature (water moderates temperature). Climate Change is REAL–and truly dangerous. And we cannot handle it with the silly theories proposed by the governmental people (VicePrez Gore and IPCC).

    Yes, it was obvious that fossils must be involved, and the CO2-as-a-blanket theory made some logical sense, but the models based on it have Failed to the 95% or even 99% confidence level now, and we had better move past that.

    Destroying the soils and eons-old ecological balances threatens both our ability to grow food for human beings, and also the well-being of everything wild. Today, about 85% of us are urban dwellers with very little connection to farms and growing things. Our lawns are the only thing left–and we are so disconnected even from those that we do not notice that they grow best in the summertime, not the winter–which utterly falsifies all the howling of the alarmists.

    The primary motivation of the alarmists is the hope for an increase in taxes from a tapped-out public that simply will not pay. But crashing the economy does not raise taxes. Lower rates does that the best–and encouraging the development of energy so that the people grow richer and have more funds to pay taxes with.

    Those who want to save the world would do better to study agriculture including permaculture, organic farming etc, and learn from Nature as to what really works.

Comments are closed.