EPA’s political agenda will destroy economy

Advertisement

Webster’s definition of gullible is “easily cheated or tricked.” The biggest example of gullibility today is demonstrated by those who believe beyond doubt that human-generated CO2 drives global warming “climate change.”

I understand why this gullibility exists — we’re bombarded daily with climate alarmism from all sides including politically — and financially-motivated “warmists” from James Hansen (NASA) to Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC). A headline in the U-B, “More snow, less snow: all climate change” showed how preposterous these claims can be. (Sure, snow requires moisture but it also needs frigid air.)

Now Steve Luckstead — whose articles I’ve always enjoyed — has joined the “man-caused climate catastrophe” chorus. In “Human harm to climate is clear ...” (April 15) he wrote, “there is no doubt human activities cause (or contribute heavily to) global warming by pumping huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

No doubt? Any politician, educator or scientist who makes that ridiculous claim the “science is settled” or “there is no doubt” (that anthropogenic global warming — AGW — is a fact) has lost all credibility on the climate issue in my opinion.

Has Luckstead read current reports that claim no global warming has occurred for 15-20 years? That indicates the planet may even be cooling due to a cyclic solar minimum? Has he bothered to at least consider the 867-page Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Climate Change Reconsidered) or it’s 416-page update, 2011 Interim Report, co-authored by Drs. Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter and S. Fred Singer? (The latter being one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists in the U.S.) Or read about satellite observations that indicate there was no global warming at all from 1978 to 1997? Apparently not.

A majority (55 percent) is being misled to believe there is dangerous CO2-caused AGW. Yes, an El Nino Southern Oscillation powered by equatorial currents and trade winds did occur during 1997-99 but that was it, other than the recognized withdrawal from the Little Ice Age.

That Luckstead believes the AGW hypothesis is his prerogative. However, I’m astonished that he’s joined those promulgating that AGW is an established fact.

Our economy will be destroyed by Obama and his EPA’s political agenda, including the coal industry that provides over half of America’s electricity, while billions of tax dollars are squandered supporting non-sustainable solar and wind companies that can’t survive without government subsidies.

Steve Singleton

Walla Walla

Comments

mtnthc 12 months ago

Steve "the sky is falling" Singleton

0

stvsngltn 12 months ago

I think it would be more accurate is you had written Steve "the sky is NOT falling" Singleton, mtnthc. Cheers.

0

mufbridge 12 months ago

Steve; You have it right, These people that push this adjenda are doing so for financial gain. The earh has went through climate changes for eons People do not want these changes but are having them rammed down our throats.

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

What frustrates me are those scientists who publish peer-reviewed articles claiming climate change is real and primarily caused by man. What do they know, anyway. Those darn scientists. They seem to be everywhere, and it is frustrating. It seems that for every good non-peer-reviewed study that pokes holes in the theory, there are a hundred peer-reviewed studies that support it. This is a conspiracy of the scientific journals.

And then there are the dubious organizations whose motives are all about money and politics. The American Meteorological Association, Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America. Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and on and on and on.

All of these have put out statements in support of climate change science and its man-made causes, but what do these organizations know about science? Nothing! Plus there are the universities, which are mostly a brew of steaming socialism anyway. We know what their agenda is.

They are all in on it, I tell you! This all started with Obama.

1

namvet60 12 months ago

I totally agree with your synopsis to the point of everything started with Obama - it actually started with that phony that invented the internet - get ready - Al Gore!

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

I forgot about Gore. Good point.

0

MyFamNews 12 months ago

You are being sarcastic, right?

1

namvet60 12 months ago

I don't know if fatherof5 was but I was inbetween facetious and sarcastic - take your pick? This global warming to climate change has been going on forever and if you look at the results of the people trying to curb the climate change - they are taking .01% of the world and expect to change the universe.

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

Yes, MyFamNews. I apologize that tone is sometimes hard to convey in writing....but yes.

2

stvsngltn 12 months ago

Fatherof5: We could get into a debate about which scientists are right and which are wrong. And also whether or not those organizations you mention actually are saying that anthropogenic CO2 is the driving force (unproven!) or if the planet is actually warming. But my point is that there is FAR too much evidence that man's CO2 is insignificant at a mere 390 ppm (parts per million) insofar as actually affecting climate is concerned. So at least everyone should agree that the science is not settled and admit that. So, until it is, why should we cripple our economy and industry by severely limiting CO2 output? It's a no-brainer. Or should be. BTW, the latest group of scientists who refute AGW is a problem are from NASA -- who do not want that Agency to be associated with Hansen's misinformation on this issue.

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

I'm reading that the science from peer-reviewed climate scientists is quite strong that climate change is real and that it is likely caused primarily by man's activities. When credible scientific institutions and peer-reviewed scientists start saying otherwise, that will get my attention. To my knowledge, that is not happening in the credible, peer-reviewed scientific community.

1

PearlY 12 months ago

There are no less than three qualifiers to your statement:

A. Climate change is real. The obvious answer to this is Duh! Of course it is. The climate is always in the process of changing; it's not a static process. No one could credibly argue against that statement, but at the same time, it also adds nothing to the discussion.

B. It is likely caused primarily by man's activities. This is a meaningful statement but takes a little deconstruction.

'Likely' is a qualifying word of estimation, meaning less than certain, but more probable than not. More probable than not indicates a greater than 50% chance. The need to use this word conclusively establishes that the science iss NOT settled that man's activities are the primary cause or even a cause at all.

'Primarily' is another qualifying word of estimation. It's used in two different ways. It could mean, 'more than 50%' or it could mean 'more than any other single cause.' I'm unaware of any consensus on exactly what percentage of climate change is caused by man's activities. It could be, for example, that out of 100 contributors to climate change, man's activities, at 2%, contribute more than any of the other 99.

C. The science is 'quite strong.' Yet a third qualifier

0

PearlY 12 months ago

(Continuation)

C. The science is 'quite strong.' Yet a third qualifier contradicting the premise that the science is conclusive.

Stated another way, you have said: "There is an unquantified possibility that man's activities are contributing, to an uncertain degree, to the direction of climate change we are presently undergoing, i.e., the climate change we would be experiencing absent man's activities might have been different to an unknown degree.

Hey! I can agree with that!

Then we still have to parse out:

A. Which of man's activities are contributing in which direction. For example, how much is caused by CO2 emissions and how much is caused by our recent efforts to reverse the depletion of the ozone layer?

B. To what extent is it feasible to reverse a climate change trend, whatever its cause?

C. Exactly what effect would it have on the current trend to reduce our contributing activities by, say, 10% versus 30% versus 100% and how sure are we of THAT?

D. What would it cost to reduce our contributing activities by the various percentages?

E. How does that cost compare to the cost of adapting to the change instead of trying to halt or reverse it?

And that's before you even get to the issue of how to allocate that cost among individuals.

Al Gore-style self-serving alarmism (he's making multi-millions off this stuff, you know) naturally induces skepticism. And it is not irrational to question whether one should drastically lower one's standard of living based on the state of the science on this issue

0

stvsngltn 12 months ago

In my personal library I have no less than 70 repeat 70 books on the issue -- all of which refute the hypothesis of AGW -- and within these books are many, many source notes, Internet links to scientific sources, diagrams, graphs, and many more peer-reviewed and other papers by countless scientists who obviously are not getting their message across to the public in general -- at least the public who for one reason or another will not take the time to study them.

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

PearlY, each of my three qualifiers were intentional. The nature of science is to work in probabilities. The vast majority of credible scientists think it is highly probably that (a) climate change is occurring, and (b) that it is caused by man's activities.

I would be inaccurate to characterize it as 100% consensus that everything is known. I have been careful not to do so.

However, when the vast majority of credible scientists believe something to be true, and that it may have moderate to significant impacts on the earth over the next 100 years and beyond, I think a response is warranted.

It would be irresponsible to look at a comet coming at the earth and say, "You know, the scientists think there is a 10% chance that comet will miss the earth. Let's ignore it." Even with no guarantees of success, and even at great cost, an effort should be made to divert the comet before it hits.

We don't know how bad climate change will be, but most credible scientists are concerned about it. That makes me concerned too.

1

PearlY 12 months ago

I appreciate that you qualified your statement, but keep in mind that Mr. Singleton's letter was taking issue with UNqualified statements that there's "no doubt" that human activities "cause or heavily contribute" to global warming.

And his letter was also pointing out what is undeniably true - that some earlier predictions are not panning out the way many scientists expected. New data that fails to fit into a hypothesis must be accounted for, including by considering the possibility that the hypothesis is false in whole or in part.

I also appreciate that you have not claimed 100% consensus. But you have claimed 'vast' majorities, a claim that I believe to be beyond available data, and inserted an undefined parameter about credibility. Science is so politicized now that it is all too common for any scientist who deviates from one's preferred position to be labeled not credible, without bothering to address his or her arguments.

Besides, let's not forget that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I'm sure you were skeptical of the claims by scientists paid by the tobacco companies that smoking was not harmful. There are billions of dollars at stake in the climate change arena, far more than ever were at stake in the smoking battles, and scientists are more acutely aware of that than anyone and can't help but be influenced not only by that, but by the vicious attacks leveled at any skeptic.

I read (or at least, skimmed) the first two IPCC reports, and can tell you that the scientific parts were far more restrained in their approach than the executive summaries, which were all that were reported in the general press.

If there's ever a 90% chance of a comet hitting Earth, I, for one, DO plan to ignore it. Well, except that I'd buy some really fine wine, without paying as much attention to the price as I do now.

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

I'd join you for a glass of wine.

0

PearlY 12 months ago

And just think, arguing about politics then would be pointless!

0

Igor 12 months ago

Help! Help! The polar bears are drowning. I’m gonna buy me some beachfront property . . at Tollgate! Those that still subscribe to the GW nonsense need to read the recent article in the March 30 – April 5 edition of The Economist. The temperature of the earth has been flat for the last 15 years. To my friends on the Left, alls I can say is yer climate models ain’t makin’ it. Hey, I can still remember the 1970s when the same “science is settled” crowd were predicting another ice age. Science is never settled. As Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.” The environmental movement has nothing to do with the environment, but it has everything to do with politics, i.e., who’s gonna rule. One way the left remains in power is by manufacturing one phony crisis after another and then promising to fix things is we vote for them. But, as H.G. Wells said, “The crisis of today is the joke of tomorrow.”

Yours in Sustainability,

Green Igor

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

Igor, the sub-headline in the article you cite from The Economist reads: "The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away." This article does not support your theory that this is a phony crisis.

2

namvet60 12 months ago

I'm curious - how much CO2 does the space ships that travel with these little green men emit? WOW - I better take a couple days off - I'm starting to sound like mtnthc!

0

stvsngltn 12 months ago

As the one who wrote the letter under debate I do appreciate this important debate including points of those who disagree with me as well. Just some comments: 1. I didn't mention Al Gore simply because (to anyone who reads) both Gore and his nonsensical "An Inconvenient Truth" have been thoroughly discredited -- look at "A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth or the 35 errors in that film, for example.

  1. The NASA scientists point of view can be seen at therightclimatestuff.com that has a 21-page printout entitled "Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report" dated April, 2013.

  2. Here it is in a nutshell: A. 98-99% of earth's atmospher is Nitrogen (78.09%), Oxygen (20.95%) and traces of Argon (.93%). B. This leaves 1%-2% that are known as Greenhouse Gasses with Carbon Dioxide being around 0.039% of our atmosphere. C. Of all Greenhouse Gasses, 95% is water vapor which leaves roughly 5% of that tiny fraction of our atmosphere as either CO2 (3.62%) or other gases (1.38%). D. When you break down that CO2 you find that some 96.6% of it is naturally-caused and only 3.4% produced by humans, or anthropogenic. E. Some scientific reporting advises that the 5% of GG that is not water vapor breaks down to 4.72% Ocean Biologic Activity, Volcanoes, Decaying plants, Animal activity, vegetation decay, etc. while Human contribution is just 0.28% of that GG. In any event, man's CO2 output is obviously too minimal to be seriously viewed as driving global warming or climate change. The least we should do is state that it does and spend trillions in futile attempts to reduce it.

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

The "NASA scientists' point of view" to which you refer is a group of retired NASA folks, the leader of which appears to be an aerospace engineer, not a climate scientist. Why should I trust him over actual climate scientists whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals?

In your second point above, you list a lot of data. Are you a published climate scientist? I'm certainly not. When I start hearing those kind of scientists say that man-made climate change is most likely a fiction, then that will persuade me. Until then, I am casting my lot with the most credible scientists. To do otherwise would be absurd.

Some people really don't want this to be true. Some people REALLY dislike Al Gore. Fine. I get it. I would also prefer this weren't true. Maybe it isn't. But it appears highly likely that it is. At least that's what the credible scientists are saying.

1

stvsngltn 12 months ago

I get it. You only trust peer-reviewed scientists who may agree with you, saying that someone who researches the issue and bases his or her opinion upon the findings upon conclusions by many scientists of many different but related disciplines -- some peer-reviewed, some not -- has no credibility on the subject. I find it silly to ignore the NASA "folks" whether retired from that Agency or not on this issue -- espeially in light of the fact these "folks" happen to be a "group of highly educated and experienced scientists and engineers from various disciplines" and are evaluating data of both AGW advocartes and those from the other side. As for peer review, it's an established fact that the IPCC is known to disregard information whether peer-reviewed or not from those with whim it disagrees. I just referred to the NASA site as one of hundreds of sources that I could list and have available .... but which I suspect you would ignore because they disagree with you.

0

namvet60 12 months ago

Mr Singleton - you could tell fatherof5 that the earth is round and he would argue about it and write a 2 page essay on it!

0

stvsngltn 12 months ago

A salute for your service from an old Jarhead who was only there in Danang briefly in '63 as an NCOIC. On the science, Steve Luckstead wrote an excellent U-B piece entitled "Political pressures twist science to fit agendas." That's true, including this AGW issue. IPCC is noted for it. If one Googles 'climate consensus' or similar, he'll find articles like "97% of scientists think global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity". But close exam of this source reveals that it's from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which just 75 "self-selected" people agreed with AGW. Well, even if it were 97 or even 99% and all were "peer-reviewed" it wouldn't mean the "science is settled" -- I recall not only when they thought we were entering another ice age in the early 70's but when I was in school in the 50's, scientists didn't believe in plate tectonics ... even though we could plainly see that the east of South America and west of Africa must have fit together at one time. Go figure.

0

namvet60 12 months ago

Totally agree - back in the late 40's early 50's being a youngun I would always have a stick by the doorstep so that I could figure out just how deep global warming I was going to have to maneuver to get to the barn. Seriously if they would run the EPA out of the country we wouldn't be in as bad of shape as we are today. Enjoy a Sunshine day!

0

fatherof5 12 months ago

Well, namvet, the earth isn't precisely round, as is noted by researchers back in the ...... hey, wait a minute, this is a trap. I'm not falling for it!

1

silversage 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Here I am trolling the underbelly of public discourse. Peer reviewed research publications cite the source of their funding that happens to be oh, no, not the federal government or other quasi-federally funded think tanks (no sharks allowed there either). If it is a peer-reviewed drug study, well you catch my drift . . . follow the money. Retired scientists who write about the hoax of global warming are no longer directly dependent on federal money. Upon retirement, did they suddenly develop dead-brain-stupid disease and then start discrediting human caused global warming with real data? Go Steve, fellow Shark!

Sharkey, President of the Local Trolling Club

0

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

So, silversage, you are saying that since virtually all universities and virtually all scientific organizations receive some government funding, that their conclusions - and their work reviewing the work of their peers - is all skewed in the direction of a government conspiracy to raise fears of climate change? And that this government agenda has apparently been communicated covertly to these scientists through Republican and Democratic administrations?

Or are you simply saying there is no government agenda except to provide funding for research, and that the real agenda belongs to virtually all the scientists in the worlds who are fabricating their results in order to tap into more research grants? They decided one day, "You know what? If we make up data about the climate changing, they'll have to fund our research for years!" Is that your theory?

You guys have to work really hard to avoid coming to the simpler and far more obvious conclusion: the vast majority of scientists are doing their best to do their jobs with integrity and are making discoveries about our climate that are uncomfortable for us to know how to handle.

0

silversage 11 months, 3 weeks ago

You are right about scientists committed to do their best research with integrity. My point is that if your research idea does not fit the current political agenda for funding priorities, you are forced to march to their drum beat. I remember a brilliant medical doctor who was doing early AIDS research but all of the research government funds were earmarked for cancer at that time. He could have been the ONE who made a difference. But we’ll never know because he gave up research for a medical practice. As for global warming, it’s a buzz phrase for fleecing the government and us, the tax payers! I’ve witnessed budding scientists give up on a great idea to work on his advising professor’s pet project hoping some day he/she can get funding for their research goals. Very few achieve that objective. As for human caused global warming, the scientist for and against with dueling data makes for interesting trolling. I wonder if I am still trolling for data on this issue in fifty years, will we hear that scientists like Thomas Wysmuller from NASA were right. Sharkey

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Happy to see you trolling here, Sharkey. Interestingly, I've oft been quick to accuse certain scientists such as those IPCC members whose papers are cherry-picked by the leaders as those with whom they disagree are rejected (that's documented fairly well), James Hansen and others who've been accused of "cooking the books" to fill there agendas but there is another aspect -- and that is a human nature factor in which some individuals in that community who have stated AGW is a fact for years just cannot bring themselves to admit that they have been wrong .... so they continue to grasp at any straw available to try to convince others (and themselves) they were right. They will continue doing that until we must move our towns out of the paths of approaching glaciers during the next cold cycle. There's a lot of discussion afoot of the current solar minimum.

0

loplover 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Most of the "organizations: that are publishing "facts" claiming that global climate change is not happening are funded directly or indirectly by the fossil fuel companies. They have quite a vested interest in seeing that their activities are not impeded upon, and they have virtually unlimited funds with which to buy scientists. Compared to the oil companies, coal companies, etc., investment in bribing senators and congressmen, scientists probably go cheap. Those with the most credibility say that climate change is real.

That said, I think cap-and-trade was nothing but a scam, and I have serious doubts about how much good limiting CO2 emissions in this country is going to do, considering that China builds a new coal plant---with virtually NO environmental regs---every couple of weeks, Brazil deforests another 100 square miles of rain forest a day, and the rest of the developing world is busy polluting the planet.

Personally, I think that climate change is something that we have to prepare for, but I'm much more concerned with specific threats that target this country. The Keystone XL pipeline, for example, and the whole idea of burning tar sands oil. Someday the oil WILL run out, and if we haven't developed some new forms of energy, we are going to wind up wandering in the desert like the current oil sheiks will do when their source of income dries up. It may not be in our lifetime, but most people have children and grandchildren that may or may not have a habitable world to inherit.

In terms of the destruction of the biosphere, the biggest threat to global weather is the deforestation of the Amazon basin. IMHO, of course. I'm not a scientist but I've done a bit of research, and while cutting down on CO2 emissions probably is a good idea, there are bigger fish to fry that nobody ever seems to mention. Our nation media is so thoroughly controlled by the mega-corporations that own them that I'm much more interested in the things they try to keep from us than those they shove in front of our faces every day.

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Of the hundreds - perhaps thousands - of qualified international scientists who are sources of the 70 books I mentioned -- one would be hard pressed, I think, to accuse them all - or even a large segment of them -- as being "in the pocket of fossil fuel companies. I may try to research as many of them as possible but that will be an enormous task. I am (believe it or not) a seeker of truth and have no agenda of my own nor do I have any stocks, grants nor income other than my retirement annuity (so obviously I am not in anyone's pocket myself either). But you're absolutely right, LopLover, regarding deforestation effects -- in fact that's the reason for example that the Kilamanjaro ice has diminished (rather than by "global warming" temperature increases as some have falsely claimed). All glaciers do that if not replenished by snow.

0

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm just happy that this global warming is cutting my heat bill especially with the temp in the morning in the high 20's and low 30's! Well I guess being the first of May I should expect the mornings to be close to freezing?

0

Sign in to comment

4 free views left!