Gross Misuse of Science to Achieve a Political End
Author
Dr. Tim Ball Bio
Send a friendEmail Article
broken watermains
Restore our Constitution
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, June 22, 2009

The enemies of freedom do not argue; they shout and they shoot. --Dean William Inge

Wider and More Pervasive Damage
Media focuses on the Obama administration policies that put the entire economy in jeopardy through massive and growing debt. It involves the complete illogic of claiming you can reduce debt by increasing debt; what I have called short term gain for long-term pain. It also means increase in government control. However, there are many legislative actions sliding through almost unnoticed, based on equally false logic and information that are threats to freedom through increased government control and economically damaging.

The phrase “They shout and they shoot” is rhetorical, that is designed to persuade or impress. You can achieve the same threats to freedom without shouting or shooting. Keeping silent about facts is as dangerous as shouting. Acting without evidence for purely political reasons is as threatening as not shooting. Both actions are a common theme of the climate change issue practiced by government. Those who use climate change to limit freedom also will not argue by claiming, “the science is settled”.
Action on Many Fronts

An all out assault to push a political and economic agenda on climate change is underway. One shout came when the White House released the document “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.”

Jane Lubchenco of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who said when appointed, “Obama told her that climate change and economic development should be her agency’s top priorities” presented it.

What does a scientific organization responsible for air and water have to do with economic development? A mission statement written by Lubchenko says, “NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product.”

This is a passive statement and a long way from the active implications of economic development.

At the White House briefing Lubchenco said, ”This report provides the concrete scientific information that says unequivocally that climate change is happening now and it’s happening in our own backyards and it affects the kind of things people care about.” Lubchenco’s statement is like claiming there is concrete scientific information that says unequivocally women are having babies and it’s happening in our own backyards. Climate change is happening and has always happened – it would be more noteworthy if it weren’t happening. It is an incredibly silly and uninformed statement for anyone to make, especially a scientist.

Besides, the Report doesn’t provide “concrete scientific information”. It follows the same pattern as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Impact Report of Working Group II assumes without question that warming and or climate change is due to human produced CO2 then speculates on the impacts. These impacts are then presented as inevitable facts. It is only right if the assumption is correct, but it isn’t. A wider analysis of the misuse, misdirection and deception of data in the White House Report is available at Climateaudit, the blog of Steve McIntyre who exposed the now infamous “hockey stick”.

John Holdren, another White House appointed scientist, provided an example of accepting inevitability, and worse, urging action. Holdren said, “the findings make the case for taking action to slow global warming—both by reducing emissions and adapting to the changes that “are no longer avoidable.” Problems with the statement include; global warming has stopped and the temperature is declining; CO2 levels are not causing warming and do not relate to temperature at any point in any record; climate changes never were avoidable but they are more problematic if you prepare for the wrong change. Holdren’s comments, like Lubchenco’s, show complete lack of understanding of climate science, but like Lubchenco he was apparently appointed for political willingness not scientific rigor.
The EPA Extend its Mandate

A second “shout” came through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but it is shooting with a silencer. It is blindly moving forward with legislation titled, Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

They are using their authority to ensure clean air to control or limit CO2 confirmed by a Supreme Court decision. Some say the decision was made by a majority of Justices who were empathetic to concern about global warming without understanding the science. Justice Scalia wrote in dissent, “The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency.””

The Clean Air Act item 7602 (g) says, The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.

The definition is so wide it is meaningless or as Scalia put it, “malleable”. It could include virtually anything including oxygen. The EPA identify six greenhouse gases namely, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This is a clever mix because the first three are natural atmospheric gases and the last three man-made. (Ironically, hydrofluorocarbons were introduced as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) incorrectly claimed to be destroying the ozone layer. The problem is there was never any proof that CFCs were destroying the ozone.) All of these gases together are less than 4 percent of total greenhouse gases.

How can they list naturally occurring gases as pollutants? Because they claim they are causing global warming and climate change, but those are natural processes. There is no evidence that they are due to greenhouse gases at all except in the completely contrived computer models and broadcast in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 is essential to life and not causing warming or climate change. In every record for any time period and any duration temperatures change before CO2 not as assumed in the theory that human CO2 is the cause. Methane is only 0.00017 percent of all atmospheric gases and 0.36 percent of greenhouse gases so of little or no consequence. More important, the atmospheric levels have dropped for 14 of the last 15 years.

Why don’t they list water vapor, which is 95 percent of the greenhouse gases by volume? It is by far the most important and abundant greenhouse gas, but is virtually ignored. How much does it vary? How much of any change in the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor? The answer is we don’t know because it varies more around the globe than any other greenhouse gas and is very difficult to measure worldwide.

When media want to show pollution they invariably use a factory chimney. Nowadays virtually everything coming out is water vapor that condenses into visible water droplets. This greenhouse gas, apart from possibly causing warming is causing rot and accelerating decay everywhere. They could also add oxygen because it is causing rust, especially when combined with the moisture.
Government Control and Economic Cost

The EPA says greenhouse gases, but they really mean CO2. While these actions will not generate revenue for government it will seriously impact US business making them less competitive in world markets. They will pass the costs on to the consumers and increase cost of living at a very inopportune time. This is a tough situation to accept even if it was necessary, but is outrageous because it is unnecessary. It is a major pattern of the entire climate debate for proponents to ignore the fundamental science.

The Obama administration pushes Cap and Trade ostensibly to limit greenhouse gases but actually to raise revenue. The President wants a fast track because he needs the money to reduce a deficit already causing him difficulties. Consider the deficit and debt going forward without the revenue from Cap and Trade. Apparently he can create his own system without congressional approval.

Either way it may be in position by late 2009. This activity is political and revenue related and is a loud “shout and shoot.”
EPA is making a mockery of science

Meanwhile his administration through the EPA is making a mockery of science by selectively identifying only some greenhouse gases as pollutants. Victors rewrite history and there are cases when they have rewritten nature, however, it is unconscionable when done by a modern scientific and technical society. It is even more unacceptable when unnecessary. When it means more government control, jeopardizes business and the economy while dramatically increasing the cost of living. There is only one explanation for their actions, ideologically blind politics, but as Aldous Huxley said, “The facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.”

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.