THE CAP AND TRADE SCHEME EXPOSED

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

The hypothesis of dangerous human-caused warming caused by CO2 emission is embroiled in uncertainties of the fundamental science and its interpretation, and by fallacious public discussion. It is utterly bizarre that, in face of this reality, public funding of many billions of dollars is still being provided for climate change research. It is even more bizarre that most governments, urged on by environmental NGSs and other self-interested parties, have either already introduced carbon taxation or trading systems (Europe; some groups of US States), or have indicated a firm intention to do so (Australia).

At its most basic, if scientists cannot be sure that temperatures are today rising, nor establish that the gentle late 20th century warming was caused by CO2 emissions, then it is nonsense to propose that expensive controls are needed on human carbon dioxide emission.
Claims by Stephen Schneider, a biologist, that melting Greenland ice will drown today’s coastlines and trigger a worldwide belief in the need for action to combat imagined “catastrophic global warming” are scientifically-unjustified and unjustifiable, says the Science and Public Policy Institute – a Washington, D.C. research organization.

A recent blog posting by Schneider saying, “We cannot pin down whether sea levels will rise a few feet or a few meters in the next century or two” is unfounded. The UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, says sea level will rise just 17 inches in the 21st century, compared with 8 inches in the 20th. The IPCC also says Greenland would only lose half of its vast ice sheet if global surface temperatures remained at least 2 degrees Celsius higher than the present for several thousand years. Since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, global temperatures have fallen for eight straight years at a rate equivalent to 1 degree Celsius per century.

Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.


Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.



Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

 Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”Source:Science and Public Polict Institute-

And our president appears to realize the political implications of a Cap and Tax bill even though he has not left the Goreites global warming ponzi scam completely.
Perhaps it is the report of the  pesky CBO report that has alerted Congress and the voting public that passing Cap and Trade will affect unemployment and productivity, although less than the experts whom I quote in this blog.

A cap-and-trade bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions passed in the House but stalled in the Senate, and appears further in doubt after a new Congressional Budget Office report warned the measure could hurt employment and growth.


"Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy," the nonpartisan CBO said.
The budget office estimated the House bill would reduce gross domestic product by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent below expected levels in 2050.

The CBO called the potential reduction "modest," however, noting that adjusted GDP for 2050 is expected to be about 2.5 percent higher than it is now.
The CBO also noted that a move away from carbon-producing industries would reduce employment "a little," since labor markets would not be able to easily adjust to shifting demands.

Although relatively minor, the CBO's conclusions further complicate Obama's efforts to get cap and trade passed.
As many as 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist, do not reflect credit on the presenter of the movie or on those who advised him. The movie is unsuitable for showing to children, and provides no basis for taking policy decisions. Schools that have shown the movie to children are urged to ensure that the errors listed in this memorandum are drawn to the children’s attention.



In addition to providing ammunition to opponents, the economic cautions contained in the report are political trouble for Obama in key electoral states like Michigan, Ohio and other carbon emissions hot spots, which already have higher-than-average unemployment rates. Source: jmason@washingtonexaminer

And with this year's $1.6 trillion budget deficit and President Barack Obama's proposal to double the national debt over the next decade have made spending restraint and deficit reduction vitally important. Despite the President's pledges to "bend the curve" of health care spending growth downward and to "not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits--either now or in the future," the leading health care plans in Congress would add trillions of dollars in new spending, even if they are deficit neutral. And to please his ecology zealot voters Obama is willing to follow a xheme that is disputed by hundreds of climate scientists!


These bills represent a staggering abandonment of fiscal responsibility and would result in higher taxes and slower economic growth for current and future generations.