Climate and Weather

018
Out of sight, out of mines
By John M. Contino
As a generalization, it's safe to say that there are few things in this world more odious to an environmentalist than the mining of metals and minerals, except if those activities are conducted in an obscure, faraway place, and if the fruits of those activities bear the cool, sleek moniker of "clean."

There's a modern-day "Heart of Darkness" being perpetrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where tens of thousands of children as young as four are forced to haul rocks to the surface from mines dug by hand as part of a cobalt-mining operation, under conditions that would make Upton Sinclair, or, for that matter, Joseph Conrad, blush. Last August, the Daily Mail printed an article describing these conditions, where they also reported that each electric car requires an average 15 kg (33 lbs) of cobalt in its batteries.

To give credit where due, according to Benchmark Minerals, Panasonic has enabled Tesla to reduce its cobalt consumption by 60% over the last six years by utilizing nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA) technology versus nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM), which remains the standard for the electric vehicle (E.V.) industry. Nevertheless, replacement technology for cobalt is still at least ten years out, and the projected "EV surge is far more significant than the reduction of cobalt intensity which is close to its limit[.] ... [M]ore cobalt will be needed and the reliance on Democratic Republic of Congo as the primary supplier [60% of worldwide production] will increase."

On May 17, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that "[p]rices of lithium and cobalt more than doubled from 2016 through last year, but the rally has cooled off recently amid worries about oversupply." The market responded in typical fashion by ramping up worldwide production (i.e., mining) of lithium and, to a lesser extent, cobalt. Consumption levels of nickel, manganese, and aluminum are no doubt on the rise as well.

E.V.s and plug-in hybrids are eligible for federal tax credits up to $7,500, depending upon the battery capacity, and most E.V.s are eligible for the maximum amount. Some states offer additional subsidies. Colorado is the most generous. This from The Complete Colorado:

Currently those with EV or AFV [Alternative Fuel] vehicles receive up to $20,000 in Colorado income tax credits over and above the $7,500 the federal government already grants. The credit is based on size and weight of vehicle. Light passenger vehicles get $5,000, which, unlike most states and the federal credit, can be used as a rebate, and trucks get $7,000-$20,000.

As of 4/18/2018, a bill to repeal this electric vehicle subsidy (S.B. 18-047) was postponed indefinitely by the Colorado House Committee on Transportation and Energy.

All such subsidies should be eliminated. If we stopped subsidizing electric trucks and buses, for example, we would likely see more conversions of truck and bus fleets to compressed natural gas (CNG), which is cheaper; more efficient; and, I argue, more environmentally desirable than the electric alternative.

All is imperfect, but the market is not the insidious spawn of Darth Vader. We're better off if complex, dynamic solutions have to prove their worth by competing on many levels in the real world, as opposed to a having a few masterminds (at the prodding, or shall we say incentivizing, of parties with vested interests) distort the field with edicts from above.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
018
Out of sight, out of mines
By John M. Contino
As a generalization, it's safe to say that there are few things in this world more odious to an environmentalist than the mining of metals and minerals, except if those activities are conducted in an obscure, faraway place, and if the fruits of those activities bear the cool, sleek moniker of "clean."

There's a modern-day "Heart of Darkness" being perpetrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where tens of thousands of children as young as four are forced to haul rocks to the surface from mines dug by hand as part of a cobalt-mining operation, under conditions that would make Upton Sinclair, or, for that matter, Joseph Conrad, blush. Last August, the Daily Mail printed an article describing these conditions, where they also reported that each electric car requires an average 15 kg (33 lbs) of cobalt in its batteries.

To give credit where due, according to Benchmark Minerals, Panasonic has enabled Tesla to reduce its cobalt consumption by 60% over the last six years by utilizing nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA) technology versus nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM), which remains the standard for the electric vehicle (E.V.) industry. Nevertheless, replacement technology for cobalt is still at least ten years out, and the projected "EV surge is far more significant than the reduction of cobalt intensity which is close to its limit[.] ... [M]ore cobalt will be needed and the reliance on Democratic Republic of Congo as the primary supplier [60% of worldwide production] will increase."

On May 17, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that "[p]rices of lithium and cobalt more than doubled from 2016 through last year, but the rally has cooled off recently amid worries about oversupply." The market responded in typical fashion by ramping up worldwide production (i.e., mining) of lithium and, to a lesser extent, cobalt. Consumption levels of nickel, manganese, and aluminum are no doubt on the rise as well.

E.V.s and plug-in hybrids are eligible for federal tax credits up to $7,500, depending upon the battery capacity, and most E.V.s are eligible for the maximum amount. Some states offer additional subsidies. Colorado is the most generous. This from The Complete Colorado:

Currently those with EV or AFV [Alternative Fuel] vehicles receive up to $20,000 in Colorado income tax credits over and above the $7,500 the federal government already grants. The credit is based on size and weight of vehicle. Light passenger vehicles get $5,000, which, unlike most states and the federal credit, can be used as a rebate, and trucks get $7,000-$20,000.

As of 4/18/2018, a bill to repeal this electric vehicle subsidy (S.B. 18-047) was postponed indefinitely by the Colorado House Committee on Transportation and Energy.

All such subsidies should be eliminated. If we stopped subsidizing electric trucks and buses, for example, we would likely see more conversions of truck and bus fleets to compressed natural gas (CNG), which is cheaper; more efficient; and, I argue, more environmentally desirable than the electric alternative.

All is imperfect, but the market is not the insidious spawn of Darth Vader. We're better off if complex, dynamic solutions have to prove their worth by competing on many levels in the real world, as opposed to a having a few masterminds (at the prodding, or shall we say incentivizing, of parties with vested interests) distort the field with edicts from above.
Click to expand...
Shhhhhh!!!
 
AY 24, 2018
Restoring the EPA's Scientific Integrity
By E. Calvin Beisner
For decades, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gotten away with creating regulations that lack sound scientific basis, costing Americans hundreds of billions of dollars without solid evidence that those costs are justified.

It's done this in two ways.

Sometimes, it has simply thrown out scientific results and regulated to satisfy a political pressure group. That was largely the case when, in 1972, contrary to its own scientific findings but under heavy pressure from environmentalists, it banned the use of DDT, the most effective, least expensive, safest pesticide by which to control or eradicate disease-carrying insects like mosquitoes and lice.

The U.S. had already largely eliminated malaria by widespread spraying of DDT from the 1940s into the 1960s, so the ban didn't have immediate, large-scale negative consequences here. But it has made it more difficult to combat the recent spread of other insect-borne diseases like West Nile Virus, Zika, Lyme, and spotted fever, and even malaria is making a comeback.

The greater impact of the DDT ban has been in developing countries. The EPA persuaded other federal agencies to withhold foreign aid from countries that used DDT. Most developing countries complied. The result has been hundreds of millions of cases of malaria every year and tens of millions of malaria-caused deaths over the last 45 years.

At other times, the EPA has built new regulations on "secret science" – studies whose authors refuse to grant other scientists access to the data, computer code, and methodology behind them. Such studies are not subject to replication by other scientists. Yet replication is the acid test of scientific research.

"Secret science" has been especially common as the basis for pollution regulation dependent on dose and response relationships and for regulation related to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Last month, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt requested public comment on a new rule, "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" (STRS), designed to solve that problem.

200164_5_.png
STRS provides that "[w]hen promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation." It codifies what was intended in the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, and the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST Act), both of which passed the House but never came up for vote in the Senate.

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation – a network of scientists, economists, and religious leaders dedicated to environmental stewardship and economic development for the poor – has issued and is gathering signatures to an open letter supporting the STRS that calls the proposed rule "badly needed to assure American taxpayers that the EPA is truly acting in their best interests."









https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...rlocks_snide_documentary_about_mcdonalds.html

Opponents of STRS raise three common, and at first sight credible, objections.

The first is that peer review ensures the quality of studies published in refereed journals. But there is actually no empirical evidence that peer review works well. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review held quadrennially starting in 1989, has said, "If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed on the market." In fact, as John P.A. Ioannidis demonstrated in a celebrated article in PLOS/Medicine, "most scientific research findings are false."

The second common objection is that the rule would prevent the EPA from using studies that involved confidential information, such as personal health data or corporate proprietary information. In an open letter to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, the leftist, political activist Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued, "[T]here are multiple valid reasons why requiring the release of all data does not improve scientific integrity and could actually compromise research, including intellectual property, proprietary, and privacy concerns."

Yet Section 30.5 of the rule expressly states: "Where the Agency is making data or models publicly available, it shall do so in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy, confidentiality, confidential business information, and is sensitive to national and homeland security." Section 30.9 allows the administrator to make exceptions when compliance isn't feasible.

A third common objection, also expressed in the UCS letter, is that "many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events (such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill)." But what needs to be replicable in studies of such events is not the events themselves, but the procedures used to collect and analyze data and make inferences from them.

Consider, for example, a study that used tree rings as proxy temperature measurements and purported to find that neither the Medieval Warm Period nor the Little Ice Age had occurred, but that a rapid and historically unprecedented warming had begun in the late 19th century. The study became iconic for claims of dangerous AGW driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide.

No one needed to use a time machine to return to the 11th through 20th centuries and regrow trees to recognize that the authors had committed confirmation fallacy by excluding certain data and misused a statistical procedure, resulting in false results. All anyone needed was access to the raw data and the computer code used to analyze it.

Yet the lead author's long refusal to allow access to raw data and computer code delayed discovery of these errors for years, during which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the public, and governments all over the world were led to believe its claims and formulate expensive policies based partly on them.

The UCS letter asserted that concerns about transparency and certainty raised by supporters of the rule "are phony issues that weaponize 'transparency' to facilitate political interference in science-based decision making, rather than genuinely address either." But the irreproducibility crisis is real, not phony. Furthermore, enhanced transparency works against politicization, not for it. This objection is so patently invalid as to suggest that those who offer it are themselves weaponizing confidentiality to facilitate their own political interference in science-based decision-making.

STRS will improve, not harm, the EPA's mission to protect Americans from real environmental risks. It will also reduce the risks caused by unjustified but costly regulations. It should be adopted.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
AY 24, 2018
Restoring the EPA's Scientific Integrity
By E. Calvin Beisner
For decades, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gotten away with creating regulations that lack sound scientific basis, costing Americans hundreds of billions of dollars without solid evidence that those costs are justified.

It's done this in two ways.

Sometimes, it has simply thrown out scientific results and regulated to satisfy a political pressure group. That was largely the case when, in 1972, contrary to its own scientific findings but under heavy pressure from environmentalists, it banned the use of DDT, the most effective, least expensive, safest pesticide by which to control or eradicate disease-carrying insects like mosquitoes and lice.

The U.S. had already largely eliminated malaria by widespread spraying of DDT from the 1940s into the 1960s, so the ban didn't have immediate, large-scale negative consequences here. But it has made it more difficult to combat the recent spread of other insect-borne diseases like West Nile Virus, Zika, Lyme, and spotted fever, and even malaria is making a comeback.

The greater impact of the DDT ban has been in developing countries. The EPA persuaded other federal agencies to withhold foreign aid from countries that used DDT. Most developing countries complied. The result has been hundreds of millions of cases of malaria every year and tens of millions of malaria-caused deaths over the last 45 years.

At other times, the EPA has built new regulations on "secret science" – studies whose authors refuse to grant other scientists access to the data, computer code, and methodology behind them. Such studies are not subject to replication by other scientists. Yet replication is the acid test of scientific research.

"Secret science" has been especially common as the basis for pollution regulation dependent on dose and response relationships and for regulation related to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Last month, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt requested public comment on a new rule, "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" (STRS), designed to solve that problem.

200164_5_.png
STRS provides that "[w]hen promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation." It codifies what was intended in the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, and the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST Act), both of which passed the House but never came up for vote in the Senate.

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation – a network of scientists, economists, and religious leaders dedicated to environmental stewardship and economic development for the poor – has issued and is gathering signatures to an open letter supporting the STRS that calls the proposed rule "badly needed to assure American taxpayers that the EPA is truly acting in their best interests."










Opponents of STRS raise three common, and at first sight credible, objections.

The first is that peer review ensures the quality of studies published in refereed journals. But there is actually no empirical evidence that peer review works well. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review held quadrennially starting in 1989, has said, "If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed on the market." In fact, as John P.A. Ioannidis demonstrated in a celebrated article in PLOS/Medicine, "most scientific research findings are false."

The second common objection is that the rule would prevent the EPA from using studies that involved confidential information, such as personal health data or corporate proprietary information. In an open letter to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, the leftist, political activist Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued, "[T]here are multiple valid reasons why requiring the release of all data does not improve scientific integrity and could actually compromise research, including intellectual property, proprietary, and privacy concerns."

Yet Section 30.5 of the rule expressly states: "Where the Agency is making data or models publicly available, it shall do so in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy, confidentiality, confidential business information, and is sensitive to national and homeland security." Section 30.9 allows the administrator to make exceptions when compliance isn't feasible.

A third common objection, also expressed in the UCS letter, is that "many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events (such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill)." But what needs to be replicable in studies of such events is not the events themselves, but the procedures used to collect and analyze data and make inferences from them.

Consider, for example, a study that used tree rings as proxy temperature measurements and purported to find that neither the Medieval Warm Period nor the Little Ice Age had occurred, but that a rapid and historically unprecedented warming had begun in the late 19th century. The study became iconic for claims of dangerous AGW driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide.

No one needed to use a time machine to return to the 11th through 20th centuries and regrow trees to recognize that the authors had committed confirmation fallacy by excluding certain data and misused a statistical procedure, resulting in false results. All anyone needed was access to the raw data and the computer code used to analyze it.

Yet the lead author's long refusal to allow access to raw data and computer code delayed discovery of these errors for years, during which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the public, and governments all over the world were led to believe its claims and formulate expensive policies based partly on them.

The UCS letter asserted that concerns about transparency and certainty raised by supporters of the rule "are phony issues that weaponize 'transparency' to facilitate political interference in science-based decision making, rather than genuinely address either." But the irreproducibility crisis is real, not phony. Furthermore, enhanced transparency works against politicization, not for it. This objection is so patently invalid as to suggest that those who offer it are themselves weaponizing confidentiality to facilitate their own political interference in science-based decision-making.

STRS will improve, not harm, the EPA's mission to protect Americans from real environmental risks. It will also reduce the risks caused by unjustified but costly regulations. It should be adopted.
Click to expand...

Sucker.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
AY 24, 2018
Restoring the EPA's Scientific Integrity
By E. Calvin Beisner
For decades, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gotten away with creating regulations that lack sound scientific basis, costing Americans hundreds of billions of dollars without solid evidence that those costs are justified.

It's done this in two ways.

Sometimes, it has simply thrown out scientific results and regulated to satisfy a political pressure group. That was largely the case when, in 1972, contrary to its own scientific findings but under heavy pressure from environmentalists, it banned the use of DDT, the most effective, least expensive, safest pesticide by which to control or eradicate disease-carrying insects like mosquitoes and lice.

The U.S. had already largely eliminated malaria by widespread spraying of DDT from the 1940s into the 1960s, so the ban didn't have immediate, large-scale negative consequences here. But it has made it more difficult to combat the recent spread of other insect-borne diseases like West Nile Virus, Zika, Lyme, and spotted fever, and even malaria is making a comeback.

The greater impact of the DDT ban has been in developing countries. The EPA persuaded other federal agencies to withhold foreign aid from countries that used DDT. Most developing countries complied. The result has been hundreds of millions of cases of malaria every year and tens of millions of malaria-caused deaths over the last 45 years.

At other times, the EPA has built new regulations on "secret science" – studies whose authors refuse to grant other scientists access to the data, computer code, and methodology behind them. Such studies are not subject to replication by other scientists. Yet replication is the acid test of scientific research.

"Secret science" has been especially common as the basis for pollution regulation dependent on dose and response relationships and for regulation related to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Last month, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt requested public comment on a new rule, "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" (STRS), designed to solve that problem.

200164_5_.png
STRS provides that "[w]hen promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation." It codifies what was intended in the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, and the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST Act), both of which passed the House but never came up for vote in the Senate.

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation – a network of scientists, economists, and religious leaders dedicated to environmental stewardship and economic development for the poor – has issued and is gathering signatures to an open letter supporting the STRS that calls the proposed rule "badly needed to assure American taxpayers that the EPA is truly acting in their best interests."










Opponents of STRS raise three common, and at first sight credible, objections.

The first is that peer review ensures the quality of studies published in refereed journals. But there is actually no empirical evidence that peer review works well. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review held quadrennially starting in 1989, has said, "If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed on the market." In fact, as John P.A. Ioannidis demonstrated in a celebrated article in PLOS/Medicine, "most scientific research findings are false."

The second common objection is that the rule would prevent the EPA from using studies that involved confidential information, such as personal health data or corporate proprietary information. In an open letter to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, the leftist, political activist Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued, "[T]here are multiple valid reasons why requiring the release of all data does not improve scientific integrity and could actually compromise research, including intellectual property, proprietary, and privacy concerns."

Yet Section 30.5 of the rule expressly states: "Where the Agency is making data or models publicly available, it shall do so in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy, confidentiality, confidential business information, and is sensitive to national and homeland security." Section 30.9 allows the administrator to make exceptions when compliance isn't feasible.

A third common objection, also expressed in the UCS letter, is that "many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events (such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill)." But what needs to be replicable in studies of such events is not the events themselves, but the procedures used to collect and analyze data and make inferences from them.

Consider, for example, a study that used tree rings as proxy temperature measurements and purported to find that neither the Medieval Warm Period nor the Little Ice Age had occurred, but that a rapid and historically unprecedented warming had begun in the late 19th century. The study became iconic for claims of dangerous AGW driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide.

No one needed to use a time machine to return to the 11th through 20th centuries and regrow trees to recognize that the authors had committed confirmation fallacy by excluding certain data and misused a statistical procedure, resulting in false results. All anyone needed was access to the raw data and the computer code used to analyze it.

Yet the lead author's long refusal to allow access to raw data and computer code delayed discovery of these errors for years, during which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the public, and governments all over the world were led to believe its claims and formulate expensive policies based partly on them.

The UCS letter asserted that concerns about transparency and certainty raised by supporters of the rule "are phony issues that weaponize 'transparency' to facilitate political interference in science-based decision making, rather than genuinely address either." But the irreproducibility crisis is real, not phony. Furthermore, enhanced transparency works against politicization, not for it. This objection is so patently invalid as to suggest that those who offer it are themselves weaponizing confidentiality to facilitate their own political interference in science-based decision-making.

STRS will improve, not harm, the EPA's mission to protect Americans from real environmental risks. It will also reduce the risks caused by unjustified but costly regulations. It should be adopted.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esearch/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.832c9574e3d6
 
Tom Harris
https://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris
  1. Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.
  2. Science is rapidly evolving away from the view that humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' are a cause of dangerous climate change.
  3. Climate models used by the IPCC* fail to reproduce known past climates without manipulation and therefore lack the scientific integrity needed for use in climate prediction and related policy decision-making.
  4. The UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the assertions of IPCC executives too often seriously mis-represent the conclusions of their own scientific reports.
  5. Claims that ‘consensus’ exists among climate experts regarding the causes of the modest warming of the past century are contradicted by thousands of independent scientists.
  6. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - it is a necessary reactant in plant photosynthesis and so is essential for life on Earth.
  7. Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously.
  8. Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial.
  9. It is not possible to reliably predict how climate will change in the future, beyond the certainty that multi-decadal warming and cooling trends, and abrupt changes, will all continue, underscoring a need for effective adaptation.
  10. Since science and observation have failed to substantiate the human-caused climate change hypothesis, it is premature to damage national economies with `carbon' taxes, emissions trading or other schemes to control 'greenhouse gas' emissions.
* United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
 
Paris Agreement Clarification: Developing Countries Need Not Make ANY Emission Reductions - Master Resource
Master Resource › paris-climate-agreement


“President Trump was right to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. When withdrawing the Clean Power Plan, Pruitt should make it clear that, independent of its other problems, the Paris Agreement violates the will of Congress and is a betrayal of the American people.”

In explaining why he is withdrawing the Clean Power Plan (CPP), Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on October 17 that, under the Paris climate change agreement, “China and India don’t have to take any steps with CO2 [carbon dioxide] reductions until the year 2030.”

In fact, developing countries never have to make emission cuts.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3puorp1SUa9MEHRQJRRmrE
 
Sheriff Joe said:
Tom Harris
https://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris
  1. Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.
  2. Science is rapidly evolving away from the view that humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' are a cause of dangerous climate change.
  3. Climate models used by the IPCC* fail to reproduce known past climates without manipulation and therefore lack the scientific integrity needed for use in climate prediction and related policy decision-making.
  4. The UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the assertions of IPCC executives too often seriously mis-represent the conclusions of their own scientific reports.
  5. Claims that ‘consensus’ exists among climate experts regarding the causes of the modest warming of the past century are contradicted by thousands of independent scientists.
  6. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - it is a necessary reactant in plant photosynthesis and so is essential for life on Earth.
  7. Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously.
  8. Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial.
  9. It is not possible to reliably predict how climate will change in the future, beyond the certainty that multi-decadal warming and cooling trends, and abrupt changes, will all continue, underscoring a need for effective adaptation.
  10. Since science and observation have failed to substantiate the human-caused climate change hypothesis, it is premature to damage national economies with `carbon' taxes, emissions trading or other schemes to control 'greenhouse gas' emissions.
* United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Click to expand...

Sucker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top