Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
Libertarians are Liberals.
Not much more needs to be said. It is known.
Yeah, "a deal." Either he's hawg-stupid, or he's been bought off or blackmailed.
Newt Gingrich became econut too...wanted to make a profit from it!
I would come to terms with climate science if I could find any. I happen to believe in the discipline called Scientific Method to validate science. After years and years of searching for a study which passes the tests and requirements of Scientific Method, I have found exactly...none.
Uhhmmmmm, no. Based on every prior idea to do so, they just use the anticipated revenue for more government spending! They will already have spent ten years of anticipated revenue on the day such a bill is passed. Congress borrows revenue against legislation on the docket today before penny #1 ever rolls in.
When will people ever be honest with themselves?
NOTHING convinced him- intellectually- that man is changing the climate:
“And about that same time was Mass v. EPA [the case in which the Supreme Court authorized EPA to regulate carbon emissions] — the baseline was no longer non-intervention. It was no longer a conversation about whether we should do something, but a conversation about how we should do something. And with the endangerment finding at EPA, and the Clean Power Plan going forward, the regulatory drumbeat is banging. It’s pretty hard to argue that a carbon tax is a less attractive answer than, say, EPA regulation.”
It’s a manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome LOL!
(And he sees where the bucks are.)
No tax is ever ‘revenue neutral’, ever.
This guy may think he is bright, but he is another lib drone.
From the article, “Or third, [skeptics] just don’t have a strong case. And I increasingly began to worry that it was the latter.”
Oh yeah, right! The skeptics have satellite data and observations showing that the earth has not warned for 18 years and 4 months now despite rising CO2 levels supporting their position. The alarmists have constantly adjusted historical records to support their side.
And this just coincidentally comes out on the same day as the article about a former “republican” [actually a democrat-turned-republican] doing the same “flip flop” on CO2 and the carbon tax.
Because we’re all supposed to succumb to peer pressure/herd instinct/group think or whatever and get on the carbon tax bandwagon based on shared party identity.
Not happening.
Here’s the other article that just coincidentally came out today about the Republicrat carbontaxer , posted by freeper Cincinatus’ Wife:
This Man Is America’s Hope For Near-Term Climate Action
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3289420/posts
Vox.com is nothing more than salon.com wearing a bow-tie.
Fortunately, I (and I believe millions of others) have written off Rove, RINOS and fake conservatives by any name, and they haven't realized that we know that changing the name of the issue to simply "climate science" DOES NOT make it benign. "Climate Science is a embarrassing oxymoron, since it violates the very foundation of the definition of science.
"...the most market-friendly of alternatives?" When does a scam selling a made-up non-existing product become "market-friendly?" What market is that?
Who profits? Ignorant, IQ-challenged scammers like Al Gore?
The corruption explosion in and around D.C. is driven by corrupt elected criminals and their RICO partners.
If you support this fraud explain what is wrong with the following understanding of "carbon credits." 1. Carbon credits are created out of thin air.
2.Carbon Credits are enabled by RICO elected criminals, under the pretext that either the world will be saved from imagined future catastrophes unsubstantiated by any real science, or to control pollution created by producing needed future additional energy.
3. Carbon credits would be a criminal enterprise without enabling laws passed by the elected RICO criminals.
4. Who profits by the manipulation of these Carbon Credits, directly and indirectly besides IQ deficient criminals like Al Gore?
Which "market" is the scam planning to be "market friendly" with?
Why aren't the elected criminals who promote and vote for the scam identified? Why aren't the further enabling bills similarly credited to names and positions?"
Finally who profited from the hundreds of million$ generated by the previous "Carbon Credit" industry before it collapsed? Has that ever been determined and explained?
The elected criminals would love to get unlimited taxes for their RICO enterprise, but they know that can never happen.
But they think that calling it by a different name will make the ultimate creators of wealth (working Americans) not notice that these "credits" are ultimately additional taxes by a different name, and that the working taxpayers are ultimately paying for the entire bill.
And creating more Al Gores.
A true conservative with any historical reference would know that any new revenue source will be exploited and only constitutional amendments would restrain the government.