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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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/
Sorry AKD, I don’t see what the “real” argument here is. Please tell me.
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.
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
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
E.M. Smith,
Thanks for your comments and extra information. Every time you post I learn more than I can ever remember.
Mike Bryant
“Cap & Tirade Tax” has my vote for quote of the week.
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!
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.
________________________________________
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.
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:
AND…..
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.
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
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 …
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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. :^]
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 🙂
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.)