FIrst in a Series on the New Politics: Science

RE:  Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)  

EPA Listening? At the EPA headquarters on Nov 7, EPA held one of its listening events on the need for rules to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at existing coal-fired power plants and other major emitters of CO2. The EPA web site, hand-outs, etc.; frequently used the term Carbon Pollution in discussing the event. No doubt, EPA will use these events to claim that the public demands regulation of existing plants.

Though he recognized that nothing he could say would change matters, Ken  (KAH) represented SEPP. He greeted those assembled as carbon-based life-forms and asked is life a pollutant? He asserted that human breathing increases carbon dioxide concentration of the air used by 100 times and asked does your breathing endanger human health? By this time, many in the audience were sitting up, listening; not necessarily with pleasure.

KAH reviewed the 3 major lines of evidence the EPA used for its endangerment finding: 1) a human fingerprint (hot spot), which does not exist; 2) recent unprecedented and dangerous warming, which stopped 16 years ago and was not unprecedented; 3) climate models are reliable, all of which failed to predict warming would stop and greatly overestimate warming. EPA is basing its policy on failing science and climate models that are wrong.

Then, he reviewed the Federal funding since 1993 and asked what has $165 Billion bought us? Some very good instruments to measure climate change, particularly from satellites. But, these are largely ignored. Much has been spent on failing science, failing climate models, and extreme exaggerations of the human influence on climate.

Why this failure? Because government-funded climate science tries to blame humanity for naturally occurring climate change. Based on its failing science, EPA is issuing economically destructive regulations on power plants

It is past time for the EPA to study the principles of empirical science and of model testing. Its credibility is at stake. In addition, the EPA should study the tremendous benefits to humanity and the environment from enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The comments were submitted to the EPA panel including references to the following documents, with links: Climate Change Reconsidered II, Physical Science; NIPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, Physical Science; and The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide.

Upon conclusion of the comments, a view of the audience revealed many nervous smiles. It is great to see smiling faces at EPA headquarters on a dreary fall morning.

Haapala is one of those guys who goes to meetings; curiously, he does not seem to be a Marxist tool.  His background here.   Still, he he was just using logic so you would think the  government could follow it; however, the EPA is not interested in what it has already decided as a path for state control of the masses by manipulating their stupidity (we are past ignorance.)  

Had a hard time finding fun graphics, here, as they were silly propaganda by all sides. Simpleton stuff.  So here is an image used by a school teacher. It is vaguely related, but that is good by today's journalism. 

November 8, 2010

I suppose the cartoon is not harmless as students leave with their mushy brains filled with mushy opinions and those "feelings" become part of the no information voter.