Carbon Regulation: One Scientist's Unscientific Dream?

American Thinker ^ | February 27, 2009 | Marc Sheppard

[neverdem]

There's an understandably growing unease about the likely prospect that the Obama administration will soon choose to regulate CO₂ as a pollutant.  But that disquiet would likely turn quickly to rage if more people knew the truth about the scientific conclusions on which this unprecedented incursion on both industry and individual freedom was based.  You see, it appears that those conclusions weren't based on accepted scientific procedure at all, but were instead predetermined -- and perhaps by a single man.

Our story unfolds just weeks after Barbara Boxer's pet cap-and-trade bill -- the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 -- crashed and burned on the Senate floor last June.  The wounded California Democrat called Dr. Roy Spencer before her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (SEPWC) [video], hoping to punish predominantly Republican dissenters by publicly ridiculing Spencer's positions on climate change. 

But much to the scornful Inquisitor's visible chagrin, the climatologist testified quite persuasively that "two modes of natural climate variability -- the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation" can explain as much as 70% of all measured warming since 1970.  Then the former NASA senior scientist lashed out against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which he accused "has remained almost entirely silent" about the "possible role of internal climate variations in the warming of the last century." They were, after all, commissioned to deal exclusively with human influence on the climate and thereby weren't motivated in the least to find any natural explanations.

Unflustered by Boxer's unrelenting rudeness, Spencer recalled a rather remarkable -- and remarkably overlooked -- experience, exposing the bias of the United Nation's sainted climate panel: [emphasis added]

"In the early days of the IPCC, I was visiting the head of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy -- the director, Dr. Robert Watson, who later became the first Chairman of the IPCC. He informed me and a work associate with me that since we had started to regulate Ozone depleting substances under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the next goal, in his mind, was to regulate Carbon Dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning. This was nearly twenty years ago. There was no mention of a scientific basis for that goal. So, as you can see from the beginning of the IPCC process, it has been guided by desired policy outcomes, not science."

Indeed, shortly after leaving OSTP, Watson chaired the panel, where he also acted as both working group leader and editor of its 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR).  That was the report that reignited Al Gore's warming obsession, predicting average surface temperature would increase by 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees over the period of 1990 to 2100.  Needless to say, it blamed "human activities," for the "unusual warming" of the twentieth century, relying heavily on immediately challenged computer models and a later debunked millenial-scale record based on climate proxies (the MBH98 reconstruction aka the "hockey stick graph") that diminished the extent of the "Little Ice Age" (1500-1850) and virtually omitted the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300). 

Coincidentally, a colleague of Dr. Spencer's, atmospheric scientist John Christy, served as one of the report's lead authors.  Dr. Christy, Alabama's State Climatologist, also recalls an interesting conversation -- this one between three fellow TAR contributors at an IPCC lead authors' meeting in New Zealand:

"After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: ‘We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol.'"

Not surprisingly, Christy soon found that such unempirical predisposition originated right at the top when he testified along with Watson before John McCain's Senate Commerce, Science, and Justice Committee in May of 2000.  The subject was the "Science Behind Global Warming," but the topic-contrary Kyoto-centric statements of the man leading an organization supposedly charged with unbiased research prompted Christy to later write:

"And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure."

As Dr. Christy added in a recent email, "Thus he was overtly advocating a policy position while heading up the IPCC."  Several attempts to contact Dr. Watson for comment produced no response.

Of course, TAR's bias transcended its chairman and a few compromised lead authors. As discussed in two previous pieces, this was the same report the irregularities of which prompted another of its "authors," Dr. Richard Lindzen, to himself testify before the SEPWC.  The MIT Professor of Meteorology told the committee that the vast majority of scientists contributing to the full report played virtually no role in preparing the unscientific yet principally cited Summary for Policymakers -- often written to further political agendas and the primary basis of media hype and public understanding -- nor were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents.  And that all scientists were pressured into towing the IPCC's AGW line and defending its questionable climate models:

"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults.  Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green' credentials in defense of their statements."

Reports of such impropriety plague the panel's history.  In fact, many of the 650-plus international scientists disputing IPCC methods and conclusions are former or current contributors.

Keep in mind that not only did the propaganda of the 2001 Assessment provide alarming imagery for Al Gore's inconvenient nonsense sci-fi flick, but its inverted scientific method of results preceding data collection and analysis blazed the trail for its 2007 successor's most widely disseminated fabrication -- that the probability that humans burning fossil fuels causes climate change is 90%.

The continuous quoting of which has spawned a planet of irrationally self-conscious carbo-phobes and empowered the pernicious policymaking it now faces.

He Had A Green Dream ...

The ability to "regulate Ozone depleting substances" Watson referred to in his meeting with Spencer was bestowed upon the E.P.A in 1990 under Title VI of the Clean Air Act.  The amendment empowered a government bureau to dictate legal volumes of particular gas emissions -- primarily chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) -- and levy heavy fines (currently $37,500 per violation per day) for non-compliance.  

But those gases are manmade, and alternates have been developed to fulfill their duties.  Can you imagine CO₂ -- the most rampant byproduct of industrial civilization -- being so regulated, as Watson admitted to be his goal years before taking the helm at IPCC?  After all, were the atmospheric nutrient in short supply, so would be tree-huggers' cuddling partners.  Nonetheless, modern green power brokers not only imagine it, they dream of it.  And now -- thanks to the 2008 elections, and the resultant executive science advisory, they can practically taste it.  And while Obama repeated his request for Congress to send him "legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution" during Tuesday night's speech, the green ace-in-the-hole remains bureaucracy.  

Just last week, Obama's new E.P.A director agreed to overrule her predecessor's decision to take CO₂ regulation off the table. And even before "climate czar" Carol Browner all but confirmed it on Sunday, Washington odds-makers interpreted Lisa Jackson's capitulation to petitions from both unruly alarmists and the unduly alarmed as a solid tell that the ubiquitous and vital trace gas would soon land on the Clean Air Act's pollutant list.  An outcome clearly unthinkable short the madness incited by the future 2007 Nobel Peace Prize co-recipients.

Instead, immediately following the wrongly decided 2007 Supreme Court declaration of CO₂ as an air pollutant -- states, cities and, of course, environmentalists, wasted no time flooding the courts with lawsuits compelling the E.P.A to take immediate regulatory action.  Which forced then Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson, savvy to their game, to waste no time issuing a defensive memorandum stating that short an official declaration of CO₂ as dangerous to public health, its emissions were not subject to regulation when approving new power plants.  That, in turn, sparked petitions from both the Sierra Club, which hopes to thwart the commission of 100 new plants, and 18 states [PDF], coercing Jackson's reversal of the Johnson memo [PDF] and her call for a new "endangerment finding" from her staff.

And the likely outcome of that decision will be regulation calamitous, futile and, more to the point -- of fabricated necessity.  

Proponents downplay E.P.A's reach, claiming that regulation will affect emanations exclusively from tail-pipes and "larger" stationary sources -- mostly industrial manufacturers and energy producers.  Don't believe it.  True -- the statutory tolerance threshold of 100 tons emitted per year (or the vaguely determined potential 250 tons per year) for currently listed "pollutants" such as lead, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide targets only industrial-sized structures. But CO₂ is another matter entirely -- such levels might easily be reached by office and apartment buildings, hotels, hospitals, restaurants, schools, malls, bakeries and a host of other smaller buildings, including many homes. 

Accordingly, all such structures would require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, dispensed solely at the pleasure of bureaucrats and their puppeteers, for both new construction and upgrades as decreed by Section 165 of the CAA.  And that's just for starters.  Anyone who's ever attempted to procure an E.P.A wetlands waiver to effect even minor home improvements on land that happens to abut even a large puddle is quite familiar with the prohibitive red-tape such permit systems create. But frustrating though that may be, imposing even harsher government control in the name of something as abstract as mitigating climate changes through what amounts to behavior modification tests the borders of both oppression and lunacy.

... And His Dream Could Be Our Nightmare

Some believe the threat of regulation to be just that -- and that the very thought of E.P.A control over such a large chunk of GDP might actually convince otherwise dubious members of Congress to accept Obama's preferred carbon taxation legislation, which they might, at the very least, enjoy the political benefit of.   They may be right -- but one doesn't necessarily preclude the other.

Imagine unbridled government control of all tailpipe emissions under CAA section 202(a) and myriad building permits under section 165 on top of a utility hobbling carbon cap-and-trade system.  Do huge Title VI-like individual fines imposed for tossing a steak on the backyard barbecue seem that far-fetched?  Remember, there exists no greater oxymoron than "satisfied environmentalist."   When was the last time any E.P.A regulation amounted to more than a "good start" among the green group-mindset? 

And then there's this to consider -- the polar bear is now listed as threatened by "global warming" under the Endangered Species Act. So if CO₂ were listed as an airborne pollutant contributing to such warming, how long do you suppose it might be before that family barbequer found himself subject to hefty fines not only for polluting, but also for thereby endangering the polar bear? 

What might await us at the foot of this slippery slope, perhaps "permission to exhale" requisition forms? 

And all predicated not on evidence that CO₂ influences climate (none such exists) but rather the viral progression of one man's insistence that it does.

With green believers ruling both the Executive and Legislative branches, and a Judicial majority voting sympathetically alongside them in April of 2007, these words from Lindzen just one month prior have never rung more foreboding:

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."

Needless to say -- our language offers countless pejoratives for governments that control lives through big lies, extortion and intimidation.

Not to mention the scientists who formulate or sustain those lies.

Marc Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments.

[Gene Eric]

>> 2% of CO2 of a gas that is .03% of earth’s atmosphere.

According to your data, the percentage multiplies out to 0.000006 of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 1 part in 166,667.

What percentage of the man’s CO2 contribution must be curtailed to satisfy the Global Warming crowd? Let’s say 10% which is an extraordinary amount. If 10% of man’s CO2 emission is responsible for warming, that changes the impact to 1 part in 1,666,667 of the total atmosphere. In order to justify that man is responsible for the stated Global Warming, the methods used to support the theory must have a margin of error that is less than 1 in 1,666,667. Furthermore, all the other sources of CO2 must also be constant in order to fault such a small value. If the CO2 is measured in isolation of the atmosphere, the ratio changes to 1 in 500. I would expect proximity to CO2 consumers to offset the human impact.

Would the pasture be so green not for the flatulent?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ArmyTeach]

IMHO, they are the new tyrants. That, too.

[SuziQ]

They think they know better, and we should be forced to do what they want.

[cogitator]

Gee, Spencer, Christy and Lindzen. Who coulda guessed THAT?

And further character assasination of Bob Watson, who Exxon/Mobil asked the White House to remove as IPCC Chairman.

"In March 2002, the media obtained a leaked copy of an ExxonMobil memo to the White House regarding U.S. climate policy and ongoing proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a multinational body charged with evaluating global warming evidence. The memo, from ExxonMobil’s senior Environmental Advisor, Arthur G. Randol III, asks the Bush administration to use its influence to oust Robert Watson from his post of Chair of the IPCC. Dr. Watson, an internationally respected atmospheric chemist and director of the World Bank’s Environmental Department, had been outspoken about the urgency for action to solve global warming and criticized the United States for its lack of action. The memo, dated February 2001, charged Dr. Watson with using leaked drafts of the IPCC’s climate reports to further his “personal agenda” and further inquired, “Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?” At the request of the United States, Watson was removed from his job at the IPCC a year later. The leaked memo also included a list of “recommendations,” including the removal of other specific people from U.S. government offices and the appointment of climate change skeptics to key positions within the Administration. All of the listed people, including Dr. Michael MacCracken, then Director, Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, subsequently quit or were removed from their positions."

The funny thing is: Pachauri, whom the Bush Administration wanted, turned out to be just as strong a leader of the IPCC as Watson was -- if not stronger.

Supporting link (including a link to a PDF of the actual memo):

Did Exxon Mobil Get Bush To Oust the Global Warming Chief?

The memo also requests the appointment of Christy and Lindzen to positions of increased influence on the report.

[cogitator]

And all predicated not on evidence that CO2 influences climate (none such exists)

Ridiculous. Utterly, frigging, ridiculous.

Prehistoric Global Cooling Caused by CO₂

[neverdem]

Ridiculous. Utterly, frigging, ridiculous.

"We found that the likely culprit was a major drop in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially CO2."

There's no evidence presented. It's more computer modeling!!! They don't even state what the carbon dioxide concentration was before and after.

It's pitiful.

[xcamel]

Carbon Scam/POGW

[Jacquerie]

Science. How can anyone trust any science theory?

We can't. Much of science has been subverted to political ends.

"The disinterested search for truth cannot be allowed in a totalitarian system. The vindication of the official views becomes the sole object . . ." - F.A. Hayek

[cogitator]

The Cenozoic Evolution of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

"One approach toward assessing the role of pCO2 in forcing climate change is to evaluate records of isotopic fractionation that occurred during marine photosynthetic carbon fixation. The isotopic composition of photosynthetic marine organic carbon is primarily a function of [CO2aq], growth rate, and cell geometry of the organism. By sampling sedimentary alkenones from oligotrophic-type settings, the effect of growth rate and cell geometry is presumably minimized, thereby leaving [CO2aq] as the major control on alkenone isotopic compositions.

Our results show that pCO2 ranged between 1000 to 1500 ppmv in the middle to late Eocene, and then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels by the latest Oligocene. The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica, and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C4 photosynthesis."

Google: it's good for your brain.

Now it's up to other scientists to come up with alternative Eocene-Oligocene climate scenarios where the radiative forcing effects of CO2 are not the major cause of significant climatic cooling, because the researchers have shown a) that CO2 levels were dropping significantly when the ice sheets were established and expanding, and b) the likeliest cause of the cooling was the reduced greenhouse effect due to lower levels of atmospheric CO2 (climate modeling, dontcha know).

For Sheppard to say there's "no evidence"; I repeat the statement of "ridiculous".

[wjcsux]

"The disinterested search for truth cannot be allowed in a totalitarian system. The vindication of the official views becomes the sole object . . ." - F.A. Hayek
Hayek ought to be required reading for everybody.

[richardtavor]

Good point. As a Geologist, I can assure you that there have been lots of global warmings and coolings (e.g. climate change), long before man was on the earth. To think that we can spend enough money to change the climate is absolute lunacy. My contention is that since most of the green proponents are not stupid, their agenda is to take over the world economy and enslave us little people.

[SteamShovel]

How can anyone trust any science theory?

Scientific theory is just that, theory. Facts in science can be trusted, because they represent an unbiased answer to a question. Science facts have given us a lot of good things like electricity, mobility, flight, medical advances, and communication.

The problem with science as presented today is that politics has hijacked the process, forcing outcomes for cash grants and/or the political agenda of the chief scientist.

Do not confuse real science, which is simply the process of discovery through thought and experimentation, with the climate hoax going on today.

[palmer]

As we try reduce carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, how will vegetation be impacted?

There won't be any reduction of CO2, only a slowing of the rise. That slowing will have a huge economic cost, with only trivial climate effects (compared to natural variations). There will not be any impact on vegetation whether we follow this program or not.

[palmer]

As we try reduce carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, how will vegetation be impacted?

There won't be any reduction of CO2, only a slowing of the rise. That slowing will have a huge economic cost, with only trivial climate effects (compared to natural variations). There will not be any impact on vegetation whether we follow this program or not.

[palmer]

2% of CO2 of a gas that is .03% of earth’s atmosphere. It is not this trace gas that is warming the earth.

How much warming is caused by the human-induced rise in CO2 is a matter of debate. But there is no debate that CO2 warms the earth. Without CO2, earth's water would remain frozen except near the equator during the daytime. The primary reason for that is that air would be too cold for water vapor.

[palmer]

Hey Cog, good to see you are back. There was certainly more politics on the nonalarmist side. But that doesn’t mean the AGW alarmist side was free of it, or that they had no preconceived notions before writing the report (or especially the summary). In any case the science is clear: manmade CO2 causes warming. If there is any catastrophic warming due to that warming (not likely) there is zero chance that the CO2 games currently proposed will have any effect on that.

[HwyChile]

“Scientific theory is just that, theory. Facts in science can be trusted, because they represent an unbiased answer to a question.”

That is incorrect. Science overstates its theories as some sort of fact (see Global Warming and Evolution as good examples) instead of an educated guess that could very well be wrong, and history has shown that science has been wrong more than it has been right. I do not know how you can say that “Facts in science can be trusted because they represent an unbiased answer” when you then go on to admit that science is being taken over by politics. Actually, your statements show that you know very little about science history. Science has always been corrupted by politics and has never been unbiased or given solid objective answers.

“The problem with science as presented today is that politics has hijacked the process, forcing outcomes for cash grants and/or the political agenda of the chief scientist.”

You are making my case here.

“Do not confuse real science, which is simply the process of discovery through thought and experimentation, with the climate hoax going on today.”

LOL. So global warming is not “real science” but just a “hoax” and yet the whole damn science community and the most important and influential publicans and universities and other science organizations are backing it and not stepping forward to call it a hoax. You don't have a clue.

[cogitator]

Hey Cog, good to see you are back.

Not really back; I had a bit of extra time (like now) to add some historic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and uninteresting narrative.

If there is any catastrophic warming due to that warming (not likely)

Catastrophe is one thing; serious detrimental consequences are another. I cannot see any scenario now in which there will not be serious downside to BAU. But I'm convinced there is some momentum behind the necessity to change how energy is produced, regardless of climate consequence. Judging for myself, I think wind + natural gas (Pickens Plan) + nuclear is the most logical way to buy time. I'm getting really more and more concerned about the potential hydrological consequences.

[palmer]

But I'm convinced there is some momentum behind the necessity to change how energy is produced, regardless of climate consequence

Could be, but a lot of that is politics. There will be two types of electrons, politically correct and expensive ones and cheap ones that are politically incorrect. Won't have very much to do with science or economics, just politics (like Pickens and his vested interests).

Your hydrological concerns are valid, but they need to be viewed in context. By far the worst long term droughts here in Virginia were in the 1930's and they took years to build up. One year of anomalous drought somewhere with fires is trivial in comparison.