In case you missed the debate on the Senate floor today over the Waxman-Markey bill, here is a video segment of interest.
Jackson agrees that the USA effect on global CO2 would be minimal, Chu does not.
Washington, D.C.-During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.
“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries.
“I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”
Along with Administrator Jackson’s statement, Energy Secretary Chu responded with an unequivocal “no” when asked whether he agrees with the analysis depicted in the EPA chart. “No, I don’t’ agree with that [EPA] chart,” Chu asserted.
“I was somewhat surprised that Secretary Chu disagreed with EPA’s analysis of what would happen if the U.S. acts alone to address climate change, which cap-and-trade supporters claim is a global problem,” Sen. Inhofe said. “EPA’s analysis that global greenhouse gas emission levels can only be stabilized with meaningful, mandatory action by China and India is widely accepted. I extend an invitation to the Secretary to see whether he wants to clarify his remarks.”
Source: EPW
And what incontrovertible proof does Chu offer to support his off the cuff claim?
Answers on the back of a postage stamp please…
At a recent Senate committee hearing in the Australian Parliament,our very own ETS Architect Prof. Ross Garnaut was asked a similar question, “If Australia ceased emitting CO2,would it make any difference to world CO2 levels”. His answer was “No, but politically it will make a big difference”.
There you have it, science is on the back burner, political correctness is in.
“I extend an invitation to the Secretary to see whether he wants to clarify his remarks.”
How do you clarify “no”? I thought it was pretty clear.
[snip – ad hom]
This just in over the wire:
Hmmm
Actually, nobody has proven that we are even responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, which historically has followed warming, not preceded it.
So, that chart is pure fantasy, whether anyone “agrees” with it or not. Okay, maybe not fantasy, but certainly conjecture.
Of Course EPA Administrator Jackson´s statement is correct.
This can be shown easily:
The USA are planning to reduce their CO2 Emissions by 20 % up to the year 2020 on the basis of 2005.
The total emission in 2006 of the US is roughly 20% of the world’s emission, with decreasing fraction because of the increase in India, China, and Russia.
Every year the atmospheric CO2 increase is about 2 ppmV/year (Mauna Loa measurement). In 15 years this sums up to 30 ppmV globally.
The part belonging to the US (20%) is therefore 6 ppmV.
The anticipated reduction of 20% amounts to 1,2 ppmV.
According to IPCC the global temperature increase is 3°C while doubling the CO2 from pre industrial 280 ppmV to 560 ppmV, which is for an increase of 280ppmV.
(Obviously the global temperature increase will be much lower if natural variations like the activity of the sun are considered)
Therefore the US are reducing the global temperature up to 2020 by
3°C x 1,2 ppmV/280 ppmV = 0,013°C !!!
(Remark: Indeed it is a factor of 1/ln2 = 1,44 higher, if instead of a linear approach the correct logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2 concentration is assumed.)
This indeed is a negligible even immeasurable contribution.
It is an easy task to calculate with different reductions in CO2.
Neil, you have to realize that “do you wish to clarify your remarks” is bureaucrateese for “do you have anything that leads you to that conclusion?” Obviously Dr. Chuless doesn’t or he would have elaborated on his “no” without coaxing.
I like Inhofe. Keep up the info pressure, and the bill won’t make it through Senate. People are still ignorant.
Not entirely OT. The link is, clear unequivocal graphs from supposedly trustworthy sources about key items of the science: With falling temperatures globally, I would expect ocean heat content to show signs of decrease – and I hope someone is able to keep an independent watch on the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements since currently that seems to be a monopoly and another potential source of data fudging.
Great point…
The “I don’t move as long as nobody moves”-approach is surely constructive and a clear way to innovation and progress. The point is: EU already has such a plan, so it’s time you do something, folks. Here’s a short story for you…
————————————————————————————————-
Nasreddin was seating next to a traveller, under a tree. The traveller then asked him:
– “Nasreddin Hodja, how much time does it take to reach the next city?”
– “Walk!” was Nasreddin’s answer.
– “I’m asking you how much time it would take me to reach the next city, old man, not how to reach it”
– “I said: walk!”
The traveller, thinking Nasreddin was obviously deaf as a post, shouted:
– “In how much time…”
– “I told you to just walk” said Nasreddin, interrupting him.
The traveller stood up and left, insulting the old man. A few seconds later, Nasreddin turned to him and said:
– “At this rate, it should take you two hours”.
————————————————————————————————-
Get it?
Neil:
“How do you clarify “no”? I thought it was pretty clear.”
No, but….
Neil Shearing (00:22:46): How do you clarify “no”? I thought it was pretty clear.
You have it backwards. You cannot clarify a yes, but you should clarify a no explaining why you disagree. Just trying to get links are you? Links are more helpful when you say something smart. — John Reynolds
Looks like Stephen Chu’s science degree isn’t worth much if he can’t do arithmetic.
crosspatch (00:49:50) :
This just in over the wire:
Reuters — Drafts for a meeting of the 17-nation MEF at the G8 in Italy have dropped any reference to the goal of halving C02 by 2050.
Hmmm
It was stated that there has been a big break through since the Chinese agree with to reduce global temperatures by 2 degree.
It looks like they will have their climate treaty, free money and the solution until 2050:
A combination of natural cooling and manipulation of the data sets.
A lot of countries are in desperate need of a new government and their populations a proper education.
Our Governments in control of earth’s thermostat! (virtual manipulation).
I think Dr. Chu was really just pissed at the argument that the US should not act, as others are not acting. I wished he had been more reasoned and less emotinal and put the senator in his place.
Though the EPA is correct, thought the details I am unsure, It is very likely that if in the future that is Emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise unabated, and climate changes effects more dramatic, I would not put it past a nation like America taking unilatreal action and even sucombing to using geo-engineering projects. These are dangerous and hard to predict the effects off, but by that time may be only option. So in theory US action can solve whole problem, but it isn’t ideal.
Chu has to support his “no” with believable concrete reasoning (not hand waiving). If he cannot, he loses all credibility with me. That is, I won’t believe anything he says from now on (without concrete proof in hand).
Anyhow, I think Chu was a “political” appointment — picked because he supports the environmentalist agenda without “public” reservation. Being Dr. Chu gives him credibility with non-scientists — who make up the bulk of the House, Senate, Media, and Public. Won’t work with skeptical peers, however.
I think Chu was actually saying that he disagreed with the existence and presentation of the chart, rather than the informational content ( the Inconvenient Chart ). Or maybe it was just the colors he didn’t like.
crosspatch (00:49:50) :
This just in over the wire:
Reuters — Drafts for a meeting of the 17-nation MEF at the G8 in Italy have dropped any reference to the goal of halving C02 by 2050.
In addition this is a good laugh:
A draft prepared for the MEF meeting dropped any reference to this and aimed instead for agreement on the need to limit the average increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.
It is amazing that politicians have been convinced they hold earth’s thermostat in their power !!!
OMG, what is happening to most of our supposed “leaders”? I think they ate to many vegies growing up even to this day. Some body give him a Medium Rare Steak so that he may realize the error of his remark.
The argument is made that the Climate Treaty is not effective if China does not submit to similar CO2 reductions.
Well, the Chinese will join a world wide climate treaty and the Senators will lose the argument.
They should question the science, the costs and the effects for the US economy before they discuss what other countries will do.
The US Senate must send the Climate Bill to the bin.
AGW is not about climate science at all. It is about political power.
AGW offers the same benefits for public policy as did eugenics.
Do my ears deceive me?
Did Boxer tell Inhofe to direct his question first to Chu because he is a scientist? That seems a pretty lame criteria – as though being a scientist imparts some mystic aura of omniscience to any statement made by the person.
This little video segment might go a long way to defeating cap & tax if played for the average American. Chu should be made to elaborate on what exactly is wrong with that information.
That chart is completely bogus anyway (consider the source). Even with accelerating emissions, the higher atmospheric concentrations produce an accelerating absorption rate of CO2 emissions into the biosphere and the oceans. Net effect is a 1-negative exponential curve. The rate has to reverse and go toward asymptotic horizontal eventually as levels increase. This might explain the failure of CO2 levels to perform to to our grand masters’ instructions so far. 1000 year residence time? – uh huh Susan.
Chu’s one of the best examples of a highly educated idiot that I have ever seen.
Secretary Chu’s answer can be easily explained: he’s from California, where AB 32 is now the law. AB 32’s preface states that California alone cannot stop global warming, but California can and will *show the way* for the world to increase economic activity while reducing greenhouse gases.
Dr. Chu was a professor at University of California – Berkeley, and director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley is the center of such beliefs.
AB 32’s goal of 80 percent reduction in GHGs by 2050 compared to 1990 levels requires a reduction from 1200 million metric tonnes per year down to 87 million metric tonnes per year. That is approximately a 93 percent reduction from the Business as Usual case, the 1200 figure above.
This is also consistent with the liberals’ desire to punish Western mankind by reducing our energy use by more than 90 percent. Our 20 tons CO2 per capita per year would then be reduced to 2 tons CO2 per capita per year, on a par with the undeveloped world.
A fuller version of the pledge-drop story:
G8 polluters drop pledge to cut emissions
Ron de Hann makes a good point.
AGW is so pernicious and infective an idea that we cannot rely on the Chinese to not fall for it, knowing they will not comply to it, but also knowing our leaders will comply.
The sooner AGW is stopped as a political power, the better for rational and thoughtful discourse.
Keith Minto 00:13:28
His answer isn’t political correctness. His answer is a proper, honest assessment of the political impact of a political decision.
I’m surprised that Chu didn’t clarify his “no” with an explanation along the lines of “it’s difficult to convince India and China to do something if we don’t believe in it enough to do it ourselves”.
Even senators can figure out that 20% reduction of 20% of the total is only a 4% reduction of the total.
Pass the bill.
Feel the massive pain and intrusion.
And hopefully learn something about swindlers.
I see no other way for Americans to learn.
Stupid people have to learn the hard way.
The Kyoto Protocol did not even make a dent in the CO2 numbers.
Most developed countries were expected to cut-back their emissions by 5% from 1990 levels by now. Some are reporting they have reached the target, but if this were true, there should have been a noticeably change in the CO2 trendlines – well there isn’t.
A lot of regulation, bureaucracy and economic dislocation has resulted from Kyoto without any benefits. Normally, that would be thought of as failing a cost-benefit test.
Charlie: your point is?
This reminds me of prohibition. It only lasted 1913 to 1933 and required amendments to the US constitution. I think we will have widespread cheating. Nobody likes to be forced to do something. This will be unpopular and will the survivor watching who wants to be a millionaire crowd will only learn under the government control.
The effects of imposing a massive energy tax on our present economy could well be catastrophic. The irony is that it is only our wealth that allows us to fret about such silliness as atmospheric CO2 in the first place. I can only hope that radical enviro-fascism becomes an early casualty if our economy collapses.
On one hand, It’s quite entertaining to watch idiots fiddle about with an impossible mission. While on the other, I think every discussion with the idiots should include the reminder that the entire theory is Bubkes. Eventually, the truth would gain favor simply because it’s easy, and EASY is what politicians do best. Then again, I must never underestimate the power of PC. “Mr Chuless, we see that your chart includes a number of pigs flying. Can pigs really fly? (since a congressman wouldn’t know without expert advice)” To which Chuless replies: “YES!”
Let’s change that Chu answer: “Yes!, because the president said so!”
@Pierre Gosselin (05:40:09) :
“Stupid people have to learn the hard way.”
Yeah, but… I don’t want to be taken down with them.
Leon Brozyna (04:35:45) :
Do my ears deceive me?
Bang on Leon! She kind of blew it on this one though.
Pierre Gosselin (05:39:45) :
Pass the bill.
Feel the massive pain and intrusion.
And hopefully learn something about swindlers.
I see no other way for Americans to learn.
Alas, you may be right. Some stupid people, however, may still not get it.
Charlie (05:21:45) : I think the real point is that we don’t need to reduce carbon emissions at all. What we really need is to build out nuclear so we can quit funding the Middle East – we will run out of economical oil at some point, but I see no reason to stop using oil and coal now.
BBC’s climate change blog – is the climate warming or cooling?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/is_the_climate_warming_or_cool.html
@ Pierre,
The problem is that once that is passed it will be with us for a long, long time. For example, in the US we paid the Spanish-American War Tax in our telephone bills (the name was changed to a ‘Federal excise tax’ to disguise it) from 1898 until 2006. Although the local call excise tax of 3% is still collected.
The Chu disagrees with the EPA.
Jackson disagrees with Chu.
They can’t both be correct.
They can both be incorrect.
Given some time, Sen Inhofe can dismantle their bluffs.
irony. If california can “show the Way” to the planet and lead us out of CO2 metabolism and combustion, can I stomp out starvation by “showing the way” and going out for lunch???
Remember 1 billion people on a 400 calorie diet maintains lower CO2 emissions. Waht about 2 billion on starvation diets? Remember is takes less calories to boil less rice. (and lower aerosol emissions)
“So in theory US action can solve whole problem, but it isn’t ideal.”
To do that would require defining what the “whole problem” is, if there is in fact any problem at all. It appears to be beyond our current level of comprehension of how the climate system works.
I’m just glad that those in the Victorian era did not decide to select our future for us…
Roger Carr (05:09:52) :
A fuller version of the pledge-drop story:
The source for this is AAP. Australian AP. AP has long been firmly in bed with the AGW clan, and therefor suspect in its reportage. For that matter, all MSM apparently emanates from a central source as it all adheres to “core messaging.”
If there is only one lesson learned from this exercise it may well be to read independent (blogs – NOT MSM) from opposite perspectives, to get at something like the truth.
On the other hand, a “pledge to keep warming under 2 degrees C?” Sure. If this were a virtual world and it only required programmatic input. Sheeesh!
OT but really, really funny:
HOUSTON – Plans for the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he’s looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.
Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall — taller than most 30-story buildings.
“When I start receiving those turbines, I’ve got to … like I said, my garage won’t hold them,” the legendary Texas oilman said. “They’ve got to go someplace.”
Pickens’ company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co. — a $2 billion investment — a little more than a year ago. Pickens said he has leases on about 200,000 acres in Texas that were planned for the project, and he might place some of the turbines there, but he’s also looking for smaller wind projects to participate in. He said he’s looking at potential sites in the Midwest and Canada.
In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He’d hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.
Wind power is a big part of the “Pickens Plan,” which was announced a year ago Wednesday. Pickens has spent $60 million crisscrossing the country and buying advertising in an effort to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil.
“It doesn’t mean that wind is dead,” said Pickens, who runs the Dallas-based energy investment fund BP Capital. “It just means we got a little bit too quick off the blocks.”
Pickens announced in 2007 plans to install the turbines in parts of four Texas Panhandle counties.
He had hoped to complete the four-phase project in 2014 and eventually have 4,000 megawatts of capacity, enough to power more than one million homes. The total cost was expected to approach $12 billion.
Renewable energy provides a small fraction of electricity used today, but the wind and solar sectors are the fastest growing in the U.S. In 2008, the U.S. became the world’s leading provider of wind power.
Like most industries around the world, the recession has hurt wind turbine manufacturers and wind farm developers. Companies have shelved development plans and laid off workers.”
I actually hope this bill passes. Maybe this will be the final straw that will wake the american people up so they can get these people out of congress. All of them. We need a reboot!
The UN is on the case….
http://unfccc.int/meetings/intersessional/bonn_09_2/items/4913.php
Bonn Climate Change Talks – August 2009
The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) will hold intersessional informal consultations from 10 to 14 August 2009. The meetings will take place at the Hotel Maritim in Bonn,Germany.
The AWG-KP and AWG-LCA informal consultations are being held in order to facilitate the successful completion of the work of both Groups, and to enable COP 15/CMP 5 to reach an agreed outcome in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Pierre Gosselin (05:39:45) :
Pass the bill.
Feel the massive pain and intrusion.
And hopefully learn something about swindlers.
I see no other way for Americans to learn.
No Pierre
Why pass the bill?
Besides the argument of entirely fraudulent science, 56 % of Americans does NOT want to spend any money on Climate Change.
That is a MAJORITY.
Since when is a majority of the people not respected?
Waxman promises the opposite, increased costs all over the place.
There is no basis for this climate bill among the US public so send it to the bin.
The EPA really needs to get their act together with that chart, keeping it the same size, but increasing the years-axis from 20 to perhaps 50-year increments, thus stretching it to the year 2240, and giving it much more of the desired alarmist effect. Al Gore is probably just itching to use that lift again, with his much-loved hockey schtick debunked.
Chu was asked a direct question, and botched it. Liars need to have a script in order to cover their lies, and this question obviously was unexpected. Expect to see a lot of spin and back-pedaling. Should be fun to watch!
Chu’s probable position is that reducing emissions a la cap and trade in the US will reduce the world-wide rise of CO2 an eensy-teensy bit.
Therefore he does not agree with the chart.
What Al et al and his intergalactic buddies may have (hopefully) learned from this is:
“Exaggeration leads the coalition of disbelief.”
If we don’t believe you – you don’t exist.
Dr. Chu probably believes American CO2 has more global warming effect than other nations CO2. American emissons more agressively warming the Earth’s atmophere because of our political, cultural and economic arrogance.
Gavin has no solar stance.
>>>>>>>
EL says:
7 July 2009 at 9:23 PM
Gavin,
What is the stance on the Deep Solar Minimum here? My simple mind sees it as a factor in this summers temperatures. Since you cut my post, I’m curious about your stance and why you have it.
[Response: I don’t have a stance. The sun is obviously a key boundary condition, which we clearly don’t have much predictive ability for. – gavin]
<<<<<<<
How convenient.
I watched some Senate opening speeches at YouTube.
One of the Senators stated that even the science was under discussion, probably in the board room of Exxon Mobile and here on the Hill.
I think we still have a lot of calls to make to selling the message that the science is flawed and we don’t want cap & trade.
So please, keep pushing and grab the phone, send a fax and confront the Senate with your opinion.
This is a major battle which can be won.
The majority of Americans don’t want to spend a single dime on Climate Change.
They are not stupid and the Senate has a good track record sending previous proposals to the shredder.
The pledge to keep global warming under 2 Celsius sounds like a good bet to me, even if CO2 continues to grow at previous non-regulated levels. The Lorenz attractor looks like it is pulling our climate back to the cold side following the late 90’s, highs.
My left knee has started to ache quite badly over the last few weeks, a sure sign next winter is going to be very very cold.
I’ve got more faith in my knee being right than I have on the Met Office or IPCC predictions – history has shown that they never get it right – time will tell!!!
I think I put more faith in a left knee than a complete ass.
Dr. Chu is right.
If we destroy the U.S. economy with this bill, then China and India will have no one to purchase their goods and services, and their energy use and CO2 output will also drop.
The height of the chart is twice the width. To me that usually indicates an intentional effort to exaggerate.
” Jim (06:35:26) : I think the real point is that we don’t need to reduce carbon emissions at all.”
That may or may not be true, but it is not the topic of the post. (and the more accurate statement would be that a 20% reduction by the US would have negligible effect on global CO2 levels). I see the topic as the impact certain actions by the US would have on global CO2 levels.
The biggest impact is not the direct reduction of our emissions, but the potential effect on efforts to get other countries, particularly India and China, to reduce their CO2 emissions. That may be squishy touchy-feely, but it is accurate.
Commenter Keith Minto (00:13:28) dismissed testimony in an equivalent hearing in Australia with the observation “There you have it, science is on the back burner, political correctness is in.”
My point is that considering the political effects of action is no more putting science on a back burner than is considering the economic effects of actions.
Considering the economic effects of CO2 controls isn’t “putting science on the back burner.” Considering the international political effects of US CO2 controls isn’t “putting science on the back burner”.
Charlie says, I’m surprised that Chu didn’t clarify his “no” with an explanation along the lines of “it’s difficult to convince India and China to do something if we don’t believe in it enough to do it ourselves”.
Shouldn’t ths logic apply to congress (and proponents like Gore). Instead we have congressional travel up over 50% in the past two years. Please congress, set an example, do something about your own carbon footprint first.
“Last summer, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) took a four-day trip to the Galápagos Islands with his wife, four other lawmakers and their family members. The lawmakers spent $22,000 on meals and hotels, records show. Mr. Baird, a member of the House Science Committee, said the trip was to learn about global warming.”
That $22,000 doesn’t include the government provided air transportation.
Pierre may be spot on. We elected these idiots, who appointed some other idiots, and most of them are nothing but looters. Their focus groups show them how to fool the brainwashed masses by using catch words and phrases to appeal to their emotions. A few examples:
Positive Feelings: hope, change, fairness, stability
Negative Feelings: windfall profits, evil rich, catastrophe
This is how you get what we now have: tyranny of the masses.
I agree with Ron de Haan. The focus should be on the flawed science or the fraudulent science, whichever emerges from various studies. Anthony is showing, in my opinion, fraudulent surface station temperature gathering that is being used for the purpose of making public policy by showing an “unusually” warming environment.
In the current story, even though there is a disagreement between Energy Secretary Chu and EPA Administrator Jackson, they both believe that CO2 is a potent “Greenhouse Gas” and pollutant — and they want it “regulated”. I long for the time when pollutants meant those that do real harm to humans, e.g., ground-level CO, lead, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and size of particulate matter. The focus on CO2 is absolutely ridiculous and should be ridiculed at every turn.
As much as I agree with fellow Californian Roger Sowell, I wish he and most other conservatives who desire to demonize “liberals” would finally get it. Liberals want: 1) individual rights; 2) equality of opportunity; 3) freedom of thought and speech; 3) limitations on the power of governments; 4) the rule of law; 5) individual’s right to private property; 6) a transparent system of government; 7) open and fair elections; and 8) commitment to scientific inquiry. Seen many of them lately??? The last person these ideals describe is Obama. CO2 demonization and regulation is mainly, largely, primarily a ruse to destroy our liberal representative democracy honored by both conservatives and liberals.
The contention that China and India won’t act to limit their greenhouse gas emissions is ridiculous.
Both are already planning to install more nuclear power than the U.S. has, and China has (laughable) plans for 180 gazillion watts of wind power. These countries have bought into the idea of a post-carbon economy. They can see how much trouble our middle east oil dependency is causing us.
Has anyone been watching C-SPAN? Has the Carlin situation come up at all?
Charlie (08:55:11) : I do understand your point Charlie. You are saying the effort to reduce CO2 might induce India and China to reduce CO2 emissions. My point is that the effort to reduce CO2 is based on the false premise that CO2 emissions are bad. They are not and the US should not reduce CO2 for any political reason. I submit to you there is no science-based reason, and if you want to consider economics, there is every reason to continue to burn oil, nat gas, and coal until we can build out nuclear. In the meantime if solar and other “green” energy sources can compete price-wise with more conventional sources, then more power to them. If they can compete, people will use them.
Tenuc (08:39:34) :
The pledge to keep global warming under 2 Celsius sounds like a good bet to me, even if CO2 continues to grow at previous non-regulated levels. The Lorenz attractor looks like it is pulling our climate back to the cold side following the late 90’s, highs.
My left knee has started to ache quite badly over the last few weeks, a sure sign next winter is going to be very very cold.
I’ve got more faith in my knee being right than I have on the Met Office or IPCC predictions – history has shown that they never get it right – time will tell!!!
Tunec,
Excuse me but I think this is the most insane proposal I have ever heard.
Why not file a bill to prevent earthquakes, stop volcanic eruptions or stop the earth from spinning.
Only idiots can come up with a proposal like that.
Cap and Trade has nothing to do with the environment. It is just another means to plunder America and redistribute our wealth to those who did not and refuse to earn their own.
The 535 members of Congress already have unilateral, discretionary control of about 40% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. This is an oligarchy and every action of Congress and the President to date is to reduce the American public to serfdom. It is deliberate, no mis-estimations are involved.
Best regards,
Gail S
http://backyardfence.wordpress.com
Randall (08:55:16) :
“Last summer, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) took a four-day trip to the Galápagos Islands with his wife, four other lawmakers and their family members. The lawmakers spent $22,000 on meals and hotels, records show. Mr. Baird, a member of the House Science Committee, said the trip was to learn about global warming.”
This is why so many distrust and even hate government and its functionaries. They believe they’re entitled by being “government” to take tax payer money and jet around the world on the public’s teat. At least the private sector earns their trips and doesn’t lecture us on carbon footprints.
Energy is a key component to economic growth.
If energy is taxed here, but not in India or China, and they already have a competitive advantage in labor rates, and cost of overhead rates, why would I choose to build widgets in any of the countries that sign on to energy rationing plans?
If your business uses energy to create a product or service, your boss is going to have one more reason to ship your job overseas.
Even if your job doesn’t directly depend on the use of energy, but your customers’ job is shipped overseas, will he still have the money to pay you for the work you do?
Chu is a former scientist at the fringe of science. He is now in politics and is there in the name of rubber stamping and lending validity as a chief sock Puppet. I remember the oil boom andbubble that became an oil bust in the 1980′ Shady and corrupt oil companies hired CPA’s to be controllwers so banks wouldn’t question their financial statements. But some did and they got busted like Chu here.
I suspect he had some personal reflection to Chu on after the hearing.
Charlie and others with similar views: A nation’s foreign policy is driven by self-interest. China, India and Russia donsider CO2 emission reductions to be irrelevant. Their interests are best advances by economic expansion from continued use cheap, affordable energy from fossil fuels. They are immune to political pressure or embarrassment from nations committed to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. They will benefit from the wealth transfers that result from nations who convert to non-fossil fuels fro energy.
Russia, China and India may promise to reduce use of fossil fuels. They may even sign treaties committing themselves to do so. But, they will cheat and lie while expanding consumption of fossil fuels.
It is time for you to grasp reality. Currently, the only nation whose foreign policy is consistently contrary to its best interests is ours. Just follow the news that is spun to praise him while he presides over the destruction of our capitalist democracy.
What’s with Chu’s facial contortion at 0.47s into the video? Anybody catch it?
pyromancer76:
believe me, I *get it*. A lifetime of observing and participating and debating allows me to *get it*. That was the funniest line I have read in a long, long time: “The last person these ideals describe is Obama.”
You must have a VERY different definition of *liberal* from mine. However, this thread of Anthony’s is not the place for such a discussion. I will therefore reserve my comments for another time.
US Middle east oil dependency is a myth/lie/crap. Less than 6%.
Where’s Tonya Reiman when you need her.
(A frequent guest on the O’Reilly factor for a segment that analyzes body language of various newsmakers.)
There is no doubt in my mind that Chu is simply towing the AGW line on this. No doubt whatsoever….
” Barkmor (11:11:12) :US Middle east oil dependency is a myth/lie/crap. Less than 6%.”
That’s not really all that relevant to the topic at hand, but such a statement just cries out for comment.
With a fungible commodity like oil, what counts in our sensitivity to Middle East supply disruptions are 1) the percentage of oil that the US uses that are imported, and 2) what percentage of total worldwide exports are from the Middle East.
Does anybody know of chinese, or russian papers on the subject of the so called “global warming”?. Because those from “crazy driven occidental civilization” could be checked against these.
Barrasso, Inhofe assert EPA transparency a sham
Jul 08 09 – 12:02 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a letter sent yesterday to EPA Administrator Jackson, U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator John Barrasso (R-Wy.) questioned the transparency governing the development of EPA’s endangerment finding. Senator Inhofe noted, “Having clearly articulated your commitment to transparency, one would expect Agency officials to uphold your commitment through its actions.”
“It’s clear that the data EPA used were outdated and inconsistent, as the report’s authors have revealed,” Senator Inhofe said. “Making scientific decisions while ignoring key data politicizes the scientific process and shows that important policy decisions are being made in a black box. The Agency’s actions fail to meet the Administrator’s commitment to transparency and openness.”
“The Agency’s commitment to transparency must be more than just words. The EPA cannot put a gag order on sound science,” Barrasso said. “Folks’ livelihoods are on the line.”
Full text of letter below:
June 30, 2009
Lisa Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dear Administrator Jackson:
On April 23rd 2009, you issued a Memo to all EPA employees focusing on transparency, which we believe is vitally important to achieving the Agency’s mission. In this memo, you expressed your commitment to uphold the values of transparency and openness by “letting more sunlight into our Agency.” You also stated that, “The success of our environmental efforts depends on earning and maintaining the trust of the public we serve.” In addition, you wrote, “In all its programs, EPA will provide for the fullest possible public participation in decision-making,” and that, “EPA [will] remain open and accessible to those representing all points of view, [and] EPA offices responsible for decisions [will] take affirmative steps to solicit the views of those who will be affected by these decisions.”
Having clearly articulated your commitment to transparency, one would expect Agency officials to uphold your commitment through its actions. Over the last few days, however, we have learned that a senior EPA official suppressed a detailed, rigorous account of the most up-to-date science of climate change. This account, written by two agency employees, raises serious questions about the process behind, and the substance of, the Agency’s proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
In short, the authors raise an issue that is difficult to ignore or dismiss: the scientific data supporting the endangerment finding is out of date, is from non-EPA sources, and is inconsistent. As the authors wrote, “These inconsistencies are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in our view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP.”
According to a series of emails obtained by a non-governmental organization, the director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) refused to consider the report, and rejected a request to forward the report to agency officials tasked with analyzing the science behind the endangerment finding. Moreover, the director specifically barred one of the authors from disseminating or discussing the report’s findings.
We believe this and many other issues and complexities involved in the endangerment finding were either ignored or given short shrift in EPA’s proposal. In our view, this lack of transparency seriously undermines the integrity of EPA’s actions. Indeed, in reviewing the EPA’s proposed rule, there are only three pages (out of 130) devoted to discussion of key uncertainties.
In the coming weeks, we will make a series of inquiries to ensure EPA’s process governing the development of the endangerment finding is open and transparent—and that the Agency considers all view-points, and makes use of the best available, and most up-to-date, scientific data. We believe you share our commitment to transparency; therefore, we hope through your leadership that EPA will be an open, accessible, and science-based agency.
To assist us with our inquiries, please respond to the following questions:
• Do you believe the process governing the development and review of the proposed endangerment finding reflects the Agency’s, and this Administration’s, commitments to transparency and scientific integrity, as outlined in your April 23rd and May 9th memos?
• How can you ensure that the Agency’s rulemakings will be based on the best available, and most up-to-date, scientific data? What process will you develop to make this happen?
• The NAAQS review process requires a five year review to assess the latest scientific data on criteria pollutants. Would you consider implementing a similar process to review the scientific data supporting the endangerment finding?
• In an effort to resolve uncertainties documented in the report mentioned above, will you commit to resolve the Proposed Endangerment Finding solely on the record of the scientific evidence, utilizing the procedures of APA sections 556-557?
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Please respond to these questions by July 10, 2009. If you have any questions or concerns, please speak to Tom Hassenboehler of the Environment and Public Works Committee Staff at (202) 224-6176.
Sincerely,
Senator James M. Inhofe
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works
Senator John Barrasso
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight
Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works
http://www.littlechicagoreview.com/pages/full_story/full_story?content_instance_id=2908218
>Mark (10:42:37) :
>
>What’s with Chu’s facial contortion at 0.47s into the video? Anybody catch it?
IMHO the blink and other aspects of the facial contortion were thinly veiled epithets that he knew he could not speak aloud on camera. There was more he probably wanted to say (perhaps derogatory comments directed not only at Sen. Inhofe, but also at the EPA Admin.), but was biting his tongue so he would not. He despises them, but has to act like he respects them. My interpretation of a blink like that is that he is really responding, “No, you ninny. Get out of my sight!”
This inquiry by the US Senators Barasso and Inhofe should do the job, especially because Inhofe knows what the up to date science is.
I have a good feeling about their initiative.
CO2 is more exponentially more soluble in cold water than in hot water. Just a few degrees of cooling phase of the ocean waters might reduce the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly more than if we even stopped every power plants and cars in the world. A global cooling will naturally reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
How can you trust someone that told the President that CO2 is a poison and it can cause cancer?
As Baron Monckton has pointed out in his letter to Congress, after he was denied the opportunity to testify, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf, pp 15-16,
despite CO2 emissions growth that is well above the IPCC’s projections, CO2 concentration is rising at a rate well below what the IPCC projects and is in fact on a trend line that would indicate a CO2 concentration at the end of the century of 575 ppm. A brief glance at the EPA’s chart shows that level would not be meaningfully different from their “best” case scenario of the whole world joining us in a mutual economic suicide pact by embracing the destructive principles of Henry ” the Evaporator” Waxman’s boondoggle laden legislation.
Over at http://www.ted.com Dr. Hans Rosling has a very interesting presentation on world poverty in which, at about 8:40 in, he somewhat embarrassedly provides a statistical animation that reveals the direct relationship between CO2 emission growth and improving conditions for humanity. From the tenor of his comments, which indicate that he has thoroughly internalized the propaganda of the carbon demonizers, I doubt that Dr. Rosling would agree with me, but I would suggest that he has provided a most compelling piece of evidence to support my own conclusion that doing absolutely nothing about our pattern of fossil fuel usage would lead to a vastly superior outcome for humanity than any scenario of corrective action suggested by the alarmists, no matter what climate eventuates in the future. In fact, given the strong correlation between increasing prosperity and increasing consciousness of environmental issues, I think a strong case can be made that using our finite financial resources for private investments to provide the people of the developing world with expanded energy supplies and the expertise to efficiently utilize them to build their prosperity will not only lead to profound improvements in their personal existence, but will lead to a general improvement in the state of the global environment. In contrast, pursuing the plans that are now being railroaded through by our own and other world governments, will lead to vast increases in the misery index of the world, as everyone who is not in the employ of a government bureaucracy or running some type of carbon scam will find their living standards diminished and the environment will suffer as the demands of survival overwhelm concerns about damage to it.
Whoops! forgot to include the link for Dr. Rosling’s presentation, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html
“Since when is a majority of the people not respected?”
Umm, since we started putting liars, lawyers, and morally corrupt and ethically challenged people in Congress.
BTW, the USA is not and never has been nor should it ever be a “majority” rule. This is a republic and in the paraphrased immortal words:
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Winston Churchill
and Thomas Jefferson..
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Majority rule is a sure way to find a country at the thumbscrews of tyranny. We, the USA, are supposed to be a nation ruled by law, that is why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is also why the majority do not elect the President and why there is no right to vote in a federal election. You do not have that right.
The majority… have caused these problems with this BAD, very BAD science being pushed. If I were a scientist I would be ashamed to support something that some no-nothing off the street punk can see the holes through this so called global warming BS.
But, science has no shame. What it has is the same thing it always has had… a need for money and they are more than willing to whore themselves out for grants and bend at the knee to support this or that government or high-priced endowment payer.
Dear Dr. Chu– Even in the improbable event that the whole world halves its CO2 emissions, IPCC’s own models show that the resulting temperature reduction is climatologically insignificant. Do you disagree with their graphs too?
Taxman/Malarkey is nothing but a pathetic effort to appease the climate gods with human sacrifice.
BTW, for those who are not familiar with the graphic tools Dr. Rosling is using in his presentation, info about and access to them is available at http://www.gapminder.org/.
I find that they make powerful insights that challenge conventional wisdom about a wide variety of subjects more easily accessible and discoverable than any other method of presentation that I’ve experienced.
Ron (12:35:12) :
So, if a Democracy is a form where the Minority Rule (i.e. Gov, banks, etc) then, you DO have a Democracy in the USA and not a Republic.
Take a look at this video… the “x” at the top of the list for Democracy is the bankers.
An interesting bit of information has not made it into this discussion, but
always bears repeating.
The US is a net carbon sink. As a nation, we remove the CO2 added
by China and India. Since our contribution is negative, what more should
we be doing?
California is leading the way all right. They’re already bankrupt.
Mike D. (15:10:50) : “California is leading the way all right. They’re already bankrupt.”
And NJ, NY, IL are right behind CA.
Odd that all those states voted Democratic.
forgot to add:
but correlation is not causation.
Mike D., re California bankruptcy. Almost, but not yet. Just a minor deficit of $26.3 billion. The comedy increases out here, as the state treasurer announced he will accept California’s IOUs as payment for taxes owed the state.
Seriously… we are recycling IOUs rather than having real money flow.
Who are the geniuses in charge out here, anyway?
Tom_R (08:49:30) :
Dr. Chu is right.
If we destroy the U.S. economy with this bill, then China and India will have no one to purchase their goods and services, and their energy use and CO2 output will also drop.
Tom-R
This is a very shortsighted and dangerous idea.
1. The US people will not accept such a scheme long term
2. India and China will develop their own middle class and consume its own production
3. It is madness to shut down the most efficient producing countries.
Japan, Europe and the US beat China approx. 7 : 1 in regard to energy efficiency.
We produce not only efficient but alo “clean” and with clean I am not talking about CO2 which I do not regard as a pollutant.
We can not afford to stop our evolution and we don’t have to.
All claims of lack of energy and resources are BOGUS.
All real “problems” can be solved.
Take a walk down memory lane and try to pre-guess the party platforms of old. Then read what they were really like. If you are blue now, you would have been red back then and visa versa. The dems believed in states rights. The repubs believed in a more nationalist view of things. And there were others. It is an interesting read and helps explain why two dems or two repubs will have two different definitions of who they are.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/politics/tl_tree.html
Charlie,
The question to Prof Garnaut about Australia’s emmissions was asked by Senator Barnaby Joyce in an attempt to fathom out whether or not Garnaut’s report was based on science. Garnaut is an economist and I feel tries to be as honest as possible even if his report makes for difficult reading. It was really taken for granted that politics was behind all of this. All that was needed was a public admission and we got it!
With the clamour for all emitting countries to back some sort of ET scheme, it seems to me that stopping this runaway madness will become more difficult .
This is why I said that we are moving away from scientific reason and further into the murky ,consensus ridden,collaborative world of politics. Science will always win out, it is the continued weakening of western democracies through fuzzy logic that really concerns me.
Frank Perdicaro (14:58:03) :
An interesting bit of information has not made it into this discussion, but
always bears repeating.
The US is a net carbon sink. As a nation, we remove the CO2 added
by China and India. Since our contribution is negative, what more should
we be doing?
What we do now Frank. We take their money.
Huge CO2 Emissions Disagreement Between EPA and Energy Dept. Ignored by MSM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/08/huge-co2-emissions-disagreement-between-epa-energy-dept-ignored-msm
So, the Chinese will agree.
Really. You don’t say?
I can tell you exactly what that means:
It means that they will do anything, say anything, promise anything to get the US to shoot itself in the economic foot. Just like they agreed to take our products over there in exchange for us taking their products here. That’s how 30 years later we still have a huge trade defecit with them. We let them import all the stuff they wanted here. They let in a ‘token’ of US products.
We will throw ourselves headlong onto the AGW sword. China will shut down 1 coal plant and say they have plans for more. Ad nauseum. Year after year.
If the US buys that promise from China, they are dumber than dirt.
Irregardless of the main point that CO2 is not a toxin, never was poisonous, and is not a threat to the world.
Chu is a former scientist at the fringe of science. He is now in politics and is there in the name of rubber stamping and lending validity as a chief sock Puppet. I remember the oil boom andbubble that became an oil bust in the 1980′ Shady and corrupt oil companies hired CPA’s to be controllwers so banks wouldn’t question their financial statements. But some did and they got busted like Chu here.
I suspect he had some personal reflection to Chu on after the hearing.
pyromancer76 (09:07:14) :I agree with Ron de Haan. The focus should be on the flawed science or the fraudulent science, whichever emerges from various studies.
THIS is the crux of the matter. AGREED 110%
Gazetna,
“I remember the oil boom andbubble that became an oil bust in the 1980′ Shady and corrupt oil companies hired CPA’s to be controllwers so banks wouldn’t question their financial statements.”
That’s not quite what happened in the 1980’s. OPEC had trouble maintaining oil prices because member states over-produced beyond their agreed quotas. Saudi Arabia increased production, lowering prices, to administer a lesson to the smaller OPEC members. No bubble, no bust, nothing to do with CPAs. Remarkably, OPEC discipline has been much better in the past 20 years since Saudi Arabia’s flexing their power.
As a side benefit, USSR lost so much revenue when oil prices dropped in 1985-86 that they could no longer afford to keep up in the Star Wars arms race. Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot, all on the strength of the price of oil. Peggy Noonan wrote about all this, it is a very good read.
Charlie (11:24:48) :
” Barkmor (11:11:12) :US Middle east oil dependency is a myth/lie/crap. Less than 6%.”
“That’s not really all that relevant to the topic at hand, but such a statement just cries out for comment.
With a fungible commodity like oil, what counts in our sensitivity to Middle East supply disruptions are 1) the percentage of oil that the US uses that are imported, and 2) what percentage of total worldwide exports are from the Middle East.”
Hey Charlie, Canada is by far the biggest suppler followed by Mexico to the USA,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
“The top five exporting countries accounted for 59 percent of United States crude oil imports in April while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 80 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports.”
And the list goes,
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Apr-09
CANADA 2,281
MEXICO 1,289
SAUDI ARABIA 1,021
VENEZUELA 891
RUSSIA 779
NIGERIA 733
ALGERIA 612
IRAQ 484
ANGOLA 462
UNITED KINGDOM 424
COLOMBIA 347
VIRGIN ISLANDS 290
BRAZIL 278
ECUADOR 237
LIBYA 118
Yes! pass the billy, “Change” Obama,
spiderpoman
thanks Lance, the website is useful
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
appreciate,
spiderpoman
Yes but Iam not sure that is the whole picture.
Environmental controls in the USA have not only prevented the building of new refineries but also blocked the import, lifted in extremis, during the shortage last year, of refined products from elsewhere.
If you insist on refined products meeting your specific requirements which you cannot supply from your own refineries then you must be prepared to pay the price.
There is plenty of oil but if you choose to choke off the supply with your environmental regulations then expect to pay for it.
You have plenty of oil in your own territories but if you won’t use it you must import it at the ruling price.
Kindest Regards
a jones,
Disinformation re the oil industry in the U.S.
We in the U.S. do not have a shortage of refining capacity, instead existing refineries are expanded incrementally to meet demand. This is the cost-effective way to increase capacity rather than building new, grass-roots refineries. There was a temporary capacity shortage due to hurricane-induced outages, and the BP refinery at Texas City was shut down for safety upgrades following a serious explosion in March of 2005.
Refiners deliberately do not build grass-roots refineries based on economics, not environmental concerns.
We also have imported refined products, primarily from Europe (Rotterdam area) for many years into the New York area. Importing products was less expensive than expanding domestic refineries. However, the USA has surplus refining capacity currently, with refineries running at a historically low rate of around 87 percent, and imports are essentially nil.
The supply is not choked off, instead we have nearly overflowing storage tanks and thus the decreasing price of oil, gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
All this is factual information, readily available on http://www.eia.doe.gov.
This is not a blog where such blatant disinformation will go unchallenged.
Quite right, Ron. But how do we make them give it to us?
How convenient, the clip is cut just when Jackson starts to say “but…”
“”” Rainer Link, PhD (01:09:48) :
Of Course EPA Administrator Jackson´s statement is correct.
This can be shown easily:
Every year the atmospheric CO2 increase is about 2 ppmV/year (Mauna Loa measurement). In 15 years this sums up to 30 ppmV globally.>> I measure 0nly 1.8 ppm/yr, as the rate that has persisted since 1990; nowhere near 2 ppm/yr.<<>> I assumed your logarithmic relationship; even though I have never seen any formal proof of that relationship, and I projected it back to where we had around 8000 ppm of CO2 which is 4.3 doublings, so that gives a 12.9 deg C rise over today’s +15 deg C; or 27.9 deg C for way back then. I can find no peer reviewed evidence for the world mean global temperature ever exceeding about +22 deg C; which is way short of the 27.9 predicted from your logarithmic theory. Does that 3 deg C “climate sensitivity” persist all over the earth’s surface; regardless of what the surface temperature actually is ?<<<
I'm not able to find any peer reviewed papers which derive this logarithmic CO2 versus temperature rise formula from basic physics, nor am I able to find papers which prove that climate sensitivity is a global constant regardless of local surface temperatures; seems counterintuitive to me; maybe I should get a PhD too !
“”” Frank Perdicaro (14:58:03) :
An interesting bit of information has not made it into this discussion, but
always bears repeating.
The US is a net carbon sink. As a nation, we remove the CO2 added
by China and India. Since our contribution is negative, what more should
we be doing? “””
Way to go Frank; not only are we a net carbon sink; but we are the ONLY sizeable land mass that is a net carbon sink; the rest are either carbon sources or about neutral; and yes with 5% oft he world population we consume 25% of the world oil ; we also make about 25% of the world’s goods and services; Maybe we need to be using more of the world’s oil.
George; who’s tired of hearing what polluters WE are.
“”” Ray (13:29:40) :
Ron (12:35:12) :
So, if a Democracy is a form where the Minority Rule (i.e. Gov, banks, etc) then, you DO have a Democracy in the USA and not a Republic. “””
Please feel free to consult the US Constitution; Article IV, section 4. The US is NOT a democracy; it is 50 sovereign Republics.
George
Since the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic, at 3 deg C per doubling; that is the same thing as -3 degrees per halving.
So if CO2 in the atmosphere was eliminated altogether, the temperature should drop without limit.
George
Facts clearly have no place in this administration’s reasoning for anything it does.
CodeTech is right on. CO2 is NOT a leading indicator it is a lagging indicator.
What that means is that raising temperatures cause CO2 that is naturally trapped in the world’s oceans to be released into the atmosphere. The one and only reason to CAP and TRADE CO2 emissions is for the companies that sell CO2 offsets to make money. Like the business Al Gore is in.
What is causing the warming? Well there is a debate as to if we are still warming or starting a cool down. But the single largest contributor is our closest energy source, our own Sun. We have tracked these cycles over the past few hundred years with observations and record keeping. Analysis of tree rings confirms the human observations, just in case anyone thought that our ancestors were too dull to possibly perform this task. But listen to the Geoscientists, they have tracked the record back millions and millions or years, far before any human intervention. These things are natural.
But hey lets get everyone excited about this phony Climate Change by human activity and loose sight of the real issue. Pollution, that is something we cause and it is up to us to control it. But these grandiose schemes that will not fly will also kill the smaller steps needed to control our pollution. And that is something we can do unilaterally.
Pick your fights more carefully.