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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tom G(ologist) says: @ur momisugly 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.
Scotty the Red says: @ur momisugly 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.
@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?
Chad Wozniak says: @ur momisugly 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.
@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.
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
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.
…… “are adverse to” …………. ???? Or is that normal in US English?
Chad Wozniak says: @ur momisugly January 31, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Remember who the slavers were. http://www.kenyaconstitution.org/history/early-kenya-history/
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.
“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?
hmm.. formatting errors… the “/b>” has to be “”
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients of life.
brokenyogi says: @ur momisugly 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.
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.
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? :>)
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.
Sisi says: @ur momisugly 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.)
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.
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!
Ban government officials and staff from ever working for government contractors and most of our problems will go away.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/30-1
Headsup Anthony.
regards from a lovely warm Australia.
Gail Combs says:
January 31, 2014 at 5:14 am
SAMURAI says: @ur momisugly 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.
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.