Avoiding Carbon Myopia
Note: I’ve been telling you that global warming is an outrageous scam/fraud/hoax designed to rob you of your wealth, freedom, and livelihood. But you don’t need to trust me about that. Read what respected scientists have to say:
Willie Soon and David R. Legates. 2010. Avoiding Carbon Myopia: Three Considerations for Policy Makers Concerning Manmade Carbon Dioxide. Ecology Law Currents, Vol. 37:1.
Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon has written and lectured extensively on issues related to the sun and other stars and climate. The views expressed by Willie Soon are strictly his and do not necessarily reflect those of Harvard University, the Smithsonian Institution, or the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Dr. Legates is an Associate Professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University of Delaware and his views are given as a university faculty member under academic freedom rights. He also serves as the Delaware State Climatologist.
Full text [here]
Selected excerpts:
TOWARDS A GLOBAL CARBON REGULATORY TRADING SCHEME
In December 2009, lawmakers and representatives from around the world, along with scientists, numerous journalists, and various celebrities flew to Copenhagen, Denmark. For the most part, their goal was to promote a regulatory scheme aimed at controlling human carbon emissions by declaring the element a tradable commodity and establishing laws and regulations to govern the trade.
The proposed regulations were premised on the flawed notion, articulated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), [1] that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations will change climate dramatically and thereby cause major ecological and economic damage.
While many scientists, including us, have observed some changes in climate, the hypothesized dangerous consequences of rising atmospheric CO2 are too speculative for responsible regulatory policy. In analyzing climate policy, decision makers should be cognizant of three key considerations regarding the impact of projected rises in atmospheric CO2: (1) policy choices likely will have no measurable effect on the occurrence of severe weather; (2) positive effects on ecosystems and biodiversity are likely and should be weighed against the negatives; and (3) carbon trading schemes (such as the one touted in Copenhagen) are unlikely to lead to a reduction in atmospheric CO2. …
CONSIDERATION #1: POLICY MAKERS MUST JUDGE HUMANITY’S ABILITY TO CONTROL GLOBAL AND REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
… Policy makers should consider that the IPCC’s assumptions regarding future harm from rising atmospheric CO2 are contradicted by evidence, especially recent data that suggests the “global warming” narrative of climate change is seriously flawed. For example, the latest global temperature and ocean heat-content data [2] are both at odds with the claims of disastrous consequences. While researchers often select time periods to support their dangerous-warming hypothesis, it is now apparent that forecasts of continued surface and atmospheric warming and oceanic heat accumulation have been at odds with the observations for the last decade. [3] Similarly, computer modelers are having difficulty explaining the significant discrepancies between the increases in ocean heat content predicted on the basis of the dangerous CO2 hypothesis, and the observed ocean heat content data. [4] …
CONSIDERATION #2: POLICY MAKERS MUST WEIGH BOTH POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND POTENTIAL COSTS OF A CHANGING CLIMATE.
… Policy makers must be careful to avoid the mistakes of turning scientifically inaccurate definitions into laws and regulations. In 2007, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,”13 creating a legal definition that does not match the science. Rather than being an “air pollutant,” atmospheric CO2 is the basic building block for all photosynthetic organisms: green plants, fresh- and ocean-water algae and photosynthetic bacteria. [14] It forms the basis of most food chains and is vital to biological life. Legal definitions at odds with science make it difficult to enact sensible policy. …
CONSIDERATION #3: POLICY MAKERS MUST RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBILITY THAT CARBON TRADING SCHEMES MAY NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2.
Recent failures of carbon emission trading, both in the Chicago Climate Exchange and in the E.U. Emission Trading Market, confirm the simple but harsh reality that carbon trading is an artificial and unworkable system that will likely cause more harm than good, since there are simply too many potential cheaters, too many opportunities to cheat and get away with it, and too many opportunities to make big profits by cheating. …
CONCLUSION
Prudent policy makers should not get swept up by the shortsightedness of the alarmist media coverage of human-induced global warming. Rather, given the potential costs and impacts, they should be suspicious that advocates have subverted science to further their own causes.36 Understandably the extent of uncertainty regarding the role and impact of rising atmospheric CO2 may come as a shock to those swept up by the fanaticism. Given the uncertainty involved, policy makers should consider the scientific data carefully.
Decision makers should consider the following questions: Do we really want a future based on the grievous misunderstanding engendered by carbon myopia? Can humanity really afford to ignore the real harm that would be caused by adhering to these fallacies about carbon? We must have the courage to stand against climate alarmism and stand for rational stewardship and for reliable, affordable energy. We urge political leaders of the world to do the right thing and to reject any deal that would tax or restrict carbon emissions. Only in that way can they protect the jobs, health, welfare, economic opportunities, environmental quality, living standards, and civil rights that depend so critically on hydrocarbon energy.
