The 9th Circuit has determined that human activity is the main cause of global warming. This has yet to be demonstrated by hard evidence.
Late last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must consider the “risks of global warming” when setting gas-mileage standards for light trucks, minivans and SUVs.
Central to the court’s ruling was the claim that NHTSA, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, had ignored the benefits of reducing emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).
Whatever their legal acumen, Justice Betty Fletcher and her colleagues on the bench demonstrated they have little expertise in climate science. Tighter restrictions on CO2 emissions cannot produce the imagined benefits. Greenhouse gas emissions occur globally: The court’s mandate will not measurably curb CO2 levels or global warming.
The court also assumed that human activity is the main cause of global warming. This has yet to be demonstrated by hard evidence.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) points to glacial melting, shrinking sea ice, and other consequences of global warming. But such “evidence” doesn’t tell us whether the causes are natural or manmade. Other evidence, such as the claimed correlation between temperature and CO2, is circumstantial; during much of the 20th century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising.
A forthcoming report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), of which I am the editor, may provide needed balance. An independent organization, not sponsored by the United Nations, national governments, or industry, NIPCC — which includes many IPCC authors and expert reviewers — was created to provide a second opinion on the IPCC’s official findings, much as a physician’s diagnosis may warrant a second opinion.
Drawing on peer-reviewed publications in major scientific journals, NIPCC examined the data used in IPCC’s May 2007 climate-change assessment, as well as research ignored in the IPCC report or published subsequent to its release. NIPCC concludes that “evidence” to support public hysteria about human-caused greenhouse warming does not hold up to scrutiny. Among the findings, expected to be published early this spring:
- Human activities — such as transportation and industrial production — contribute little to global warming. The claim that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for rising global temperatures is based on computer models. But as NIPCC confirms, key temperature readings contradict the models. For example, while all greenhouse models show temperature trends rising with altitude in the tropical troposphere — the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere — weather balloon data show the opposite: a cooling trend. The models are wrong.
- Greenhouse warming has been significantly overestimated. NIPCC has found that the models exaggerate the warming effect of greenhouse gases by ignoring “negative feedback” from — that is, the possible cooling effects of — clouds and water vapor. Taking this into account, greenhouse warming might amount to no more than one-half of 1 degree Celsius by 2100, well within the climate’s normal range of ups and downs.
- The leading cause of observed climate warming appears to be variability of solar emissions and solar magnetic fields. The U.N. panel ignored substantial recent research on the effects of solar activity on climate change. This evidence suggests climate changes are essentially unstoppable and cannot be influenced by controlling CO2 emissions.
- Government efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions will have little effect on the environment. The requirements of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2007 Bali Climate Declaration cannot influence the natural factors controlling the climate. Similarly, massive government efforts to replace fossil fuels with ethanol, biodiesel, and wind and solar power will little effect the climate. Besides, they are uneconomic and require large subsidies.
In view of these findings, the Justice Department should appeal the 9th Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court. Doing so would also provide an opportunity for the high court to revisit its April 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA — in which it ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
This time around, the White House should be better prepared to argue its case. Science is on its side.
Republished with permission of the Independent Institute.
info@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by S. Fred Singer
Do you really want to trust the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) to argue for constitutional, legal justice?
Consider the cowardly betrayal of citizens' 2nd Amendment rights by the DOJ's filing of a double-think
AMICUS CURIAE Brief in the D.C. versus Hiller case.
Double-think DOJ lawyer, PAUL D. CLEMENT, argues to persuade the Supreme Court, not to pretend that the
2nd Amendment doesn't exist, but effectively to ignore it in the D.C case.
Here's the crux of his argument:
"This Court should affirm the court of appeals’ threshold determination that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right, but it should adopt a more flexible standard of review."
- Extracted from Summary of BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
In other words, don't treat a constitutional right "…of the people to keep and bear Arms…" that
"…shall not be infringed." as worthy of the highest level of judicial protection. Justify a
violation of that right under "…a more flexible standard of review."
Unbelievable anti-constitutional arrogance!!
Since Clement gives long and detailed arguments for the fact that the Constitution supports the
pre-existing right of individuals to "…keep and bear arms"; his recommendation to remand,
and his recommendation for a lower judicial standard of review is not only the ploy of a closet-tyrant,
it is also the attempted straddle of an intellectual coward.
So, if you get the Bush DOJ to intervene in the 9th Circuit (aka Circus) case, they will likely propose
some double-think strategy like the one above, in a gutless attempt to straddle a political issue.
Will you be any better off?
Comment by jrich | March 5, 2008
Gosh. On the possibility that anyone here lives up to the title of this blog, I have posted a detailed study of this issue, global climate change and human caused warming of the atmosphere, so that people can read an excellent summery of the most recent science, for free, and easily.
Not that it on the subject, but I own lots of guns, and shoot 'em too.
Download the National Academy Of Sciences study from the address below.
http://www.mailbigfile.com/84f96ea961429b63cf68a27e77a23925/listFiles.php
Comment by JDBishop5 | March 11, 2008
And, while we all chew on Dr. Singer's comments above, perhaps he will compose some remarks about what is posted here regarding his associations and remuneration?
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
It has a catchy title.
More documented evidence on the corruption of S. Fred Singer.
Comment by JDBishop5 | March 11, 2008
JDBishop,
Your source for this protest against Singer (EcoSyn) is a strongly biased environmentalist group. This makes their accusations suspect, to say the least; especially as they are not exciting a great deal of support from the larger community of environmentalists. This should make you suspicious enough to back-check the facts before spreading a possible and irrelevant slander.
The accusation they make goes like this:
1. Singer is anti-AGW and, therefore, anti-environmentalism
2. Singer once contributed to and reviewed a paper by the conservative Alexi de Tocqueville Institute (possibly sponsored by the dread Tobacco Institute) attacking a significantly flawed EPA report that over-states the risks of smoking
3. Singer was a principal organizer of the Heidelberg Appeal, which EcoSyn alleges did not include ecologists or environmental scientists (untrue)
In fact, Singer is an environmentalist and supports much of the cleanup of the environment spawned by the early movement. Essentially, EcoSyn is accusing Singer of being corrupt on the basis he supports (in some measure) and indirectly receives financial support from people that environmentalists have long vilified (i.e., tobacco and oil companies) as enemies of the environment.
Singer does not so much support them as disapproves the deliberate warping of science, and sees nothing wrong in being compensated for supporting a shared viewpoint with them. Environmentalists, including a great many with scientific credentials, regularly spin their findings to fit an agenda; and agencies like the EPA are swarming with such people and has a history of ignoring contrary evidence. Environmentalists see nothing wrong in falsifying matters because they view the objective (saving the planet) as sufficient justification. But, the thing they falsify most is that the planet needs saving, invalidating the very reason for misleading us.
We all acknowledge controlling the terms of a debate is inherently unfair. What institution has greater clout for controlling the terms of the global warming debate than the high-priest of the environment – the EPA? Who, more than they, have a vested interest in sustaining a one-sided outcome for the science? Who more than they determine who does or does not get funded? And, who, more than they, have been caught time and again playing environmental politics.
Common to the environmentalist approach is to attack ethically those they cannot best in debate. Singer is one of these, with impeccable scientific credentials and a long history of service to country and knowledge. It is telling EcoSyn prefers to attack Singer the man than his argument, because they know his argument is moderate, reasonable and factual. Singer does not (as his detractors allege) claim human-pollution is not a factor in climate-change nor that change is occurring. He merely states human-pollution has not been established as the driving factor behind the change and, until shown otherwise, it is far more reasonable supposing change is mostly natural. There is nothing wrong in his association with the tobacco industry or that they share a common assessment of climate science and environmentalism. The ‘conspiratorial’ spin EcoSyn puts on Singers dealings with tobacco is deliberately out of context and exploits what we all know to be true: that just the hint of a connection between anyone and tobacco (or oil) is sufficient to destroy a lifetime of credibility. By that token, I must be in the pay of big oil because I once pumped gasoline and got paid for it. Singer’s assessment of the EPA report is not challenged; only that it is sponsored by tobacco is taken as ‘undeniable proof’ Singer must be corrupt – not that the EPA playing us false.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 12, 2008
>Essentially, EcoSyn is accusing Singer of being corrupt on the basis he supports (in some measure) and indirectly receives financial support from people that environmentalists have long vilified (i.e., tobacco and oil companies) as enemies of the environment.
Comment by JDBishop5 | March 12, 2008
Dear Mr. Singer,
I agree with your assessment.
But what about the Constitution of the United States?
The last time I looked the Federal Government had only four powers:
1. National Defence
2. Sign Treaties
3. Coin Money
4. Post Office
Where does the Federal Government get off with EPA standards? And where does the court get the idea that it might have any type of jurisdiction in the?
Comment by GlobalRoamer | March 14, 2008
GlobalRoamer, the government should get out of the post office business too. Give them letter delivery and they want to set EPA standards too.
Comment by AMAI | March 22, 2008