NC Media Watch

Union of Pretend Scientists supports CARB's AGW Ozone Scare

Russ Steele

Why does the press not challenge these pretend scientists? Oh, sorry dumb question!

A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, concludes that CO2-induced temperature increases will worsen ground-level ozone concentrations (the kind coming from power plants and exhaust pipes, not the kind that shields the Earth from UV rays). Higher concentrations of ground-level ozone threaten the health of millions of Americans, an impact that could cost the US $5.4 billion in 2020.

The report finds that in 2020, "climate change-induced ozone increases" could result in nearly half a million additional cases of "serious respiratory illnesses" and add more than $729 million to the state's health care costs.

There was this from KQED Climate Watch in reference to the report:

The US Supreme Court Got It–California Continues To Oppose Reality

Guest Post by Ed Duffek, NorCal Tea Party, Truth in Science Committee

I attended the Legislative Committee meeting at the Capitol Building in Sacramento and witnessed the defeat of AB 1332. The historical facts below may put this action in perspective.

2006: the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, instructed the US EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. Fortunately, the EPA was not ordered to do so directly nor was it given a deadline to act.

In like fashion, CA Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the Global Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) into law, well before any EPA actions on CO2 that would follow.

Both the Court and the Governor ignored the benefits of CO2 , or even considered the very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (390 ppm) and the position of other government agencies.

For example:

1. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) sets maximum concentrations  of CO2 at a TLV (Threshold Limit Value) of 5000 ppm.
2. US Navy Submarine breathing air is set @ 8000 ppm CO2.
3. Carbon dioxide is not usually considered toxic until oxygen level drops to 19.5%. This is equivalent to 14,000 ppm CO2.

2009: Under the direction of President Obama, the US EPA decreed CO2 to be toxic and an endangerment to all. No thought was given to any harmful effects on the US economy.

2010: AB32 was passed by CA Air Resources Board  (CARB) in December. This entails draconian regulations, fees and penalties for truckers and other users of diesel fuel. It will also bring severe control of electric utilities in the near future.

2011: The US Supreme Court refused to consider a six-state lawsuit against several electric power utilities. The states’ claims stated that emissions of green house gases caused a “public nuisance,” global warming and climate change. The Court based its decision on the burden on judges to evaluate a complicated scientific matter.

Obviously, we all have a “carbon footprint” whether we admit it or not, however, there isn’t, and has never been, proof or scientific evidence that increasing CO2 causes global warming. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and has never been proven harmful to humans or to the atmosphere. California’s Democratic government and CARB refuse to accept these arguments and intend to make AB 32 fully effective in 2012.

These irresponsible actions of CARB and the CA government are already showing their harmful effects on our communities, notably Placer County. Have you noticed shuttered stores in our small towns, empty parking lots in shopping centers, large numbers of businesses that have left and continue to leave our state, and the thin automobile traffic on our freeways? Last but not least, the community of truckers that are the lifeline of our commerce is suffering greatly, and many hard-working drivers are now unemployed and/or bankrupt because of regulations, fines and the high cost of fuel. 

CARB is at the root of all this. Is this what we expect from our elected officials?

Notes on Governors Global Climate Summit 3 (GGCS3) 2010 Davis CA

Guest Post by Ed Duffek, Tea Party Patriots Truth in Science Committee

“Inside the Green Bubble”

My vague expectations in attending this Conference were to  learn what –if any–progress has been made in green, clean energy industries in CA, as well as how these activities relate to the sad state of business and the economy of our area. Also I hoped to hear what the future holds for real growth in the vitality of our State.

To summarize this 2-day meeting, I will start with my impression that the 1,500 attendees were uniformly of one mind even though they came from different nations and inclinations. In evidence were government employees, academics and socially inclined groups. All speakers were greeted with great enthusiasm— “feelgoodism” was in the air. A rowdy cheer was prompted by the announcement of victory over Prop 23.

The main substance of this event was the discussion of R20 and the signing of “the first ever Charter for Regions of Climate Action.” (It is important to note that the term Global Warming is no longer a preferred buzzword.  We’ll be hearing Climate Action and Climate Change instead.) The concept of R20 was conceived in Copenhagen in 2009 and the plan is just getting started. It involves a worldwide effort to share new approach to a “clean environment.”

The real villain is now Climate Change, which must be controlled in order to eliminate severe weather such as floods, droughts, sea level changes, hurricanes, disappearing shorelines, etc. This will be accomplished by eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and by going to low carbon policies. Their approach will be regional rather than national to avoid conflicts and inaction by large powers. The plan considers CA a sub-nation ready to act independently from US and other governments. The vision involves full cooperation between developing and more developed countries.

And who pays for all this? The plan is to appeal to public and private resources as well as the venture capital of the world. The promise is that everyone will profit in a big way. At the same time, there will be enormous savings in energy, water, raw materials since all will be used in a more conservative way. New technologies are necessarily part of R20 and are sure to come.

To be noted, all these proposals, plans and goals were presented in a superficial, qualitative and descriptive way without the benefit of numerical analysis or data. The one verifiable topic came from Dr. Art Rosenfeld who spoke about white roofs on buildings.

Science and technology were not present in the talks; opposite ideas or questions were absent and debate was not obvious. Any improvements in current means of energy production were ignored in favor of upcoming but unproven processes, like biomass and biofuels.  Missing also were financial details and how much investment will be required throughout the world. It appeared that joblessness, slow growth and uncertainty about our economic/financial future were not a concern.

In view of the severity and complexity of current problems in the world, we are of the opinion that the expectation of a complete transformation of the civilized world to a “green” economy without climate problems is beyond reality. The only distant vision at this time is a transfer of wealth like no one has ever seen.

See Ya in Shangri La…

Green Energy Industry in California is doing fine without AB32

Guest Post by Don Morgan (NorCal Tea Party Patriots Truth in Science Committee)

Even AB32 supporters admit that there is no way to estimate any climate impact if AB32 goes into effect.  In fact, most of us believe, given the faulty data supporting man made global warning theory, AB32 will have no impact on the climate whatsoever.

The next argument from AB32 supporters is that it will create thousands of ‘green’ jobs.  They make it sound as though there is no alternative energy industry in California at all.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Today, there is a very healthy multi-billion dollar green energy industry in California supported by current Government and Utility energy incentives and private sector capital investment.  For example, according to the California Energy Commission (www.gosolarcalifornia.org ), there are 68,465 solar projects in California right now!

AB32 is nothing more than another unnecessary wasteful government program that will impose an outrageous financial burden on families and small businesses throughout California.  Proposition 23 provides a very reasonable way to stop the looming economic disaster presented by AB32.

Concerning the High Cost of AB32

Ed Duffek (NorCal Patriots Truth in Science Committee)

Most CA residents (voters) do not know a thing about CARB.

If we tell them that it is a cabinet-level state agency with unlimited regulatory powers, they probably think we’re kidding.

Established in 1967, CARB consists of 11 board members and over 1000 employees, all unelected and unaccountable.  CA is the only state permitted to have such an agency since it was formed before the passage of the Federal Clean Air Act by the Nixon administration in 1970.

CARB has an extensive web site (at arb.ca.gov) that attempts to justify the massive tangle of regulations, implementations and deadlines. One noticeable defect (which may be typical of government work) is the absence of explanations or justifications that would help a citizen understand what is coming our way.   For example, carbon dioxide has been ruled a toxin and many rules and penalties based on the amount involved in a process or industry. Comes to mind, what definition or standard is used in declaring CO2 a toxin, and how is this measured? Who is the prevailing authority? Same complaint applies to many other aspects of this law.

Meantime, they claim (without providing verification) that AB 32 has actually produced cleaner air, provided jobs, saved costs, etc. By the way, any criticism or challenge is summarily condemned as “myth” or the work of the “evil corporate enemies.”

Here’s a short list of contrary facts to ponder about AB 32:

° Sacramento State University reports than estimate of $3734 per year per family due strictly to this bill;

° CARB has admitted that CA alone cannot have an input on reducing global warming and CO2 emissions;

° US EPA acknowledges that US action alone will not impact the  world CO2 levels;

° US EPA (11 July 2010) said that bills in Congress will not reduce the total use of gas and oil of 20 million gallons per day for decades;

° LAO (CA Legislative Analyst Office) stated: CA economy at large will be adversely affected by implementation of climate-related policies that are not in place elsewhere. (Letter to Dan Logue, 13 May 2010)

My conclusion, all things considered, is that in the absence of clear, understandable and referenced justifications by regulators, we shall be duped again by the arrogance, heavy-handedness and power of our state government.

Please let’s shelf AB32 by voting YES on Prop 23.