Russ Steele
In June 2006 the Legislature passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law in California.
Justification for AB32 is based on the information provide in the California Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature in March 2006. The Action Team Report relies on the IPPC Climate Assessment Reports as justification for AB32, and the need to control green house gases in California. (Page 11, Climate Action Team Report)
In June 2006 the Legislature passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law in California.
Justification for AB32 is based on the information provide in the California Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature in March 2006. The Action Team Report relies on the IPPC Climate Assessment Reports as justification for AB32, and the need to control green house gases in California. (Page 11, Climate Action Team Report)
The Third Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC, Synthesis Report, 2001) and the National Research Council of the
National Academies (NRC, 2001) conclude that the global climate is changing at
a rate unmatched in the past 1,000 years. The IPCC assessment cites new and
stronger evidence that most of the global warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities and that anthropogenic climate change will persist for many centuries.
The IPCC Reports were suppose to collect and report on the best available peer-reviewed science on climate change. However we now know from the CRU E-mail that the best available peer reviewed papers were not used, and there was a concerted effort to prevent opposing views from being published in peer reviewed journals.
Charlie Martin writing at Pajamas Media on the meaning of Global Warming Gate, catalogs some of the emails and concludes: There are three scandals we should be worried about:
* First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices.
* Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.
* Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW. Is the data really valid? Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated? Is CO2-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?
Until these questions are answered, the various attempts to "deal with the climate change crisis" have no acceptable scientific basis.
If you read the e-mails in the link above for yourself and can accept Charlie Martin's analysis of those e-mails, then I think we could conclude that AB32 has no scientific basis. It is time to start over with a clean pallet. Let's open the issue to both sides, not just the promoters of AGW. When we are done, we may not need the economy busting AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which we now know this it is based on flawed and fraudulent science.
