Making the Climate Case

This post is to highlight two recent high quality documents making the case against climate alarms. These are important additions to anyone’s library of climate science resources.

Jamal Munshi has published papers on atmospheric ozone, and as a professor emeritus is free to speak his mind on the UN Environmental Program. His paper is entitled The United Nations: An Unconstrained Bureaucracy 

He provides the history of the UN’s self-serving growth by exploiting two false alarms, first the “ozone hole”, and then “climate change.” The story needs to be remembered and retold against the tide of alarming claims. Since this paper is posted at Tallbloke’s Talkshop, it will likely be part of the intellectual framework for the rising CLEXIT campaign.

Synopsis of The United Nations: An Unconstrained Bureaucracy

The case study takes a close look at the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) by tracing its history from its humble and noble beginnings to the phenomenal growth in size, wealth, reach, and power of this taxpayer funded public sector bureaucracy.

Ozone Depletion:
For the UNEP to achieve its ambition of being the EPA for the world it needed a global catastrophic pollution problem which it could tackle and clean up just as the EPA had cleaned up the air and water in the USA. A series of events that began in the 1970s and culminated in 1985 provided them with just such an opportunity.

In view of the data presented here and in the prior studies we would like to think that the theory of ozone depletion by HHC and the ban on HHC to save the ozone layer are derived from bad science by good people who felt that they had to act quickly in accordance with the precautionary principle. However, because of the enormous gains made by the UNEP in implementing a program to solve a nonexistent problem and in view of a history of corrupt practices at the UN (Zaruk, 2014) (Ball, 2015) (Lynch, 2006) (Schaefer, 2012) (Dewar, 1995) (Rossett, 2006) (Rossett, 2008), intentional fraud and corruption for financial and bureaucratic gains by the United Nations cannot be ruled out.

Planetary Environmentalism: Climate Change
For the UNEP the frightening new global warming and climate change narrative served as yet another planetary air pollution crisis in which it could seize global leadership and grow in terms of size, funding, and power at the expense of taxpayers in donor countries. In this case, the global “air pollutant” was identified as the unnatural and extraneous new carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels. The UNEP responded to the events of 1988 almost immediately. It saw its opportunity and seized it having tasted great success in this kind of situation in the case of HHC pollution and ozone depletion.

The IPCC AR reports are biased. They are primarily concerned with selling the idea of climate change calamity and its mitigation by emission reduction. .Their use of science is limited to its utility in supporting that primary purpose. The bias in IPCC AR documents is documented in a 2010 commentary by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency which took it upon itself to audit the IPCC AR4 WG2 forecasts and concluded that “The IPCC systematically favors adverse outcomes in a way that goes beyond serving the needs of policymakers.” (PBL, 2010). . .Yet another independent audit of the IPCC AR4 was carried out in 2011 by the Inter Academy Council (IAC), an international scientific body. The deficiencies are enumerated below. . . 

From the Summary:
They sold fear of catastrophic global warming and climate change allegedly caused by fossil fuel emissions but failed to duplicate their success in the first episode (ozone depletion) because of methodological flaws and also because their own bureaucratic incompetence created an emissions reduction plan that was too complicated to implement. The complication ensures an endless series of annual meetings of thousands of delegates at exotic locations with the only concrete achievement of each meeting being that of setting the date and place for the next meeting.

These episodes serve as evidence that unconstrained and undisciplined public sector bureaucracies do not serve the interest of the public. We conclude that such UN bureaucracies can safely be dismantled without any harm to the public interest.

The second document is a well-reasoned, well-referenced submission by CEI and allies Coalition Letter against the Council on Environmental Quality’s Draft Guidance on consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects in enivronmental (NEPA) Reviews. The Final Guidance has just been proclaimed by the White House, despite the strong evidence presented in their submission.

Synopsis of Coalition Letter Against the CEQ Guidance for Environmental Reviews

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review is an inappropriate framework for making climate policy. Project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should not be a factor determining whether agencies grant or deny permits for individual projects. The Guidance endorses the alarmist perspective of EPA’s GHG endangerment finding, instructs agencies to quantify indirect (upstream and downstream) as well as direct emissions of individual projects, and recommends the use of social cost of carbon (SCC) calculations in cost-benefit analysis of projects. Each of those elements separately, and especially all in combination, will embolden anti-development groups and politicize rather than improve agency decisions. The Draft Guidance should be withdrawn. A summary of key points follows.(Full text includes extensive supporting evidence)

1.EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding is an inappropriate starting point for project-related environmental risk assessments.

2. NEPA review of project-related GHG emissions will politicize, not improve, agency decisions.

3. Incorporating social cost of carbon (SCC) analysis will turn NEPA review into a pseudo-science.

Conclusion
NEPA review is an inappropriate basis for determining climate change policy, and project-related GHG emissions should not be a factor determining whether agencies grant or deny permits for individual projects.

The Draft Guidance instructs agencies to incorporate analysis of project-related GHG emissions and climate effects in NEPA reviews. That will embolden anti-development groups and politicize rather than improve agency decisions. The Draft Guidance should be withdrawn.

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Frederick Colbourne · August 4

    I could not get the link to work. Here is another link to Jamal Munshi’s papers.

    http://sonoma.academia.edu/JamalMunshi

    Tht paper I think everybody should read is this one: THE SPURIOUSNESS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CUMULATIVE VALUES
    https://www.academia.edu/21366801/THE_SPURIOUSNESS_OF_CORRELATIONS_BETWEEN_CUMULATIVE_VALUES

    Climate science relies heavily on correlations, many of which may be spurious.

    Based on an econometric technique called polynomial cointegration analysis an Israeli group concluded, “We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period.”
    Beenstock, Reingewertz, and Paldor, Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 3, 561–596, 2012

    URL: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012-discussion.html

    Engle and Granger (1987) is the seminal paper on cointegration and perhaps the most cited paper in the history of econometrics, treating specification, representation, estimation and testing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality

    Like

  2. Ken McMurtrie · August 4

    Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    ” 1.EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding is an inappropriate starting point for project-related environmental risk assessments.

    2. NEPA review of project-related GHG emissions will politicize, not improve, agency decisions.

    3. Incorporating social cost of carbon (SCC) analysis will turn NEPA review into a pseudo-science. ”

    I can only keep “chipping” away at the surface of ignorance with real scientific facts and reporting on the huge number of experts and their evidence which supports the fallibility of the CAGW pseudo-science.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s