American Elephants

Is This Finally the End of the IPCC? by The Elephant's Child

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 244–179 on February 19, to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The  Republican majority went on record as saying that it no longer wishes for the IPCC to prepare its climate assessments.

The IPCC was founded over 20 years ago by politicians who intended to use the government-funded establishment to achieve policy goals. The IPCC does no research, but merely reports. A total of 23 climate models cover a wide range of warming estimates for our future — but there is no way to test them to see if their climate change predictions are accurate.

The climate has been far warmer in the past, and far cooler as well. Why should today’s warmth be manmade when the Medieval Warm Period was natural.  I’ve always suspected that baby-boomer scientists just can’t believe that anything important happened without them — but that’s just me.

Do follow the link. Dr. Roy Spencer works on the satellite program that measures global temperatures — the only accurate measurement of temperatures that we have. He is always ready to explain what we know and what we don’t know. An assessment without the usual scare–mongering is always welcome.

At Climate Depot, Marc Morano reports on the more than 1000 International scientists who dissent over man-made global warming claims — more than 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

They always claim that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. We are told that there is by pundits and the press.  They typically point to the number 2500 — the number of scientists associated with the UN’s IPCC.  Those 2500, the press believed had endorsed the IPCC position. That wasn’t true. Those 2500 had merely reviewed some portion of the IPCC studies. Many of those scientists actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions.

The pundits, embarrassed, looked for an alternate number. They found the statement “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus.” That number comes from a 2009 survey of 10,257 earth scientists conducted by two researchers from U. of Illinois. The researchers chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  They started out by excluding any of the thousands of scientists who were most qualified to speak on climate. They excluded the solar scientists, space scientists , cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. About 1000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, and some didn’t even have a master’s degree.  So they asked two non-questions

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Since the Little Ice Age did not end until around 1850, global temperatures have risen, and many skeptics believe that human activity has played some part in what warming there has been, the questions were pretty meaningless.  But that ‘s how the climate battles go.

In science, there is no such thing as “consensus”.  Whether organizations of scientists approve or disapprove is meaningless. That’s not how the scientific method works.

A House Spending Bill Prohibits Funding for EPA’s Damaging Climate Regulations. by The Elephant's Child

A government spending bill written by House Republicans was unveiled on Friday night.  It would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September, the end of the fiscal year.

The continuing resolution, which is this year’s funding for the government, since Democrats couldn’t get around to passing a budget bill — their primary task — so they passed a temporary “continuing resolution”.  This is Republican’s latest attempt to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions — the EPA’s attempt to accomplish by regulation the cap-and-trade bill that Congress refused to pass.

Republicans state that pending EPA climate rules will significantly damage the economy and result in major job losses.  The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources. Every shop and building could fall under the EPA purview  for emitting CO2 — a beneficent gas that is one of the basic building blocks of life. The notion that CO2 is harmful or a pollutant in any way has been soundly debunked, but the media has not caught up with the science.

The bill cuts EPA funding by $2 billion, 29% below fiscal year 2010.  The legislation cuts funding for the Bureau of Land Managements “wild lands” policy which would allow the Obama administration to protect lands that have not been formally designated as wilderness land. It has been an administration attempt to restrict oil and gas drilling.  The bill also prevents the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from terminating a license review for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

All in all a splendid bill, accomplishing important things.  Cutting the EPA’s funding is a major step in reining in an out-of-control agency playing politics with the American economy and American jobs.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,431 other followers

%d bloggers like this: