Friday, March 05, 2010

Barbara Boxer and EPA slapped down on Global Warming

Senator Barbara Boxer with EPA documents

"The report also shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system.
          It's time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment        finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline."—Sen. James Inhofe

Sen. James Inhofe for the first time was able to unpack the evidence showing that Climate Change and Global warming is a hoax in front of the Environment and Public Works Committee and its chairperson Barbara Boxer without the slightest rebuttal.

That’s because a lot has transpired since e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit a major scientists at the hub of the global warming theory have been exposed. (see article)

Prof. Phil Jones the preeminent scientist at the center of the Climate change/Global warming claims has stepped down from his position as director of the Climatic Research Unit after numerous scandals and alleged criminal conduct regarding his refusal to comply with freedom of Information requests concerning global warming data. Sen. Inhofe lays out the corruption and falsification of climate science before the committee. (see 7:37min video)

Sen. Inhofe shows that the U.N. IPCC got its science wrong on global warming: (see report)

The IPCC mistakenly claimed that global warming would:
• Melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035; i

• Endanger 40 percent of Amazon rainforests;ii

• Melt mountain ice in the Alps, Andes, and Africa;iii

• Deplete water resources for 4.5 billion people by 2085, neglecting to mention that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as 6 billion people;iv

• Slash crop production by 50 percent in North Africa by 2020.v

In addition the IPCC:
• Incorrectly stated that 55 percent of the Netherlands lies below sea level;vi

• Used data from Chinese weather station measurements that are not only seriously flawed, but can’t be located. IPCC scientists suppressed this data for years because of fears that it could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming;vii

• Included a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power that has been found to contain numerous errors;viii

• Used a biased report by the activist group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures;ix

• Deliberately ignored a paper written by a scientist that contradicted the panel’s claims about the cost of climate-related natural disasters;x

• Misrepresented the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC based this link not on peer-reviewed science but on advocacy articles by the radical group Greenpeace;xi

• Downplayed the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic to dramatize the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic. Xii (source)
Sen. Inhofe shows that the EPA finding that CO2 is a pollutant is based on flawed science and therefore should be scrapped:

CLAIM: Some have dismissed the email scandal as involving just a few scientists, the IPCC’s major gaffes exposed by the media (e.g. that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035) as irrelevant—and that neither of these things affects EPA’s endangerment finding.
• The scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws.

• Many of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy also wrote the IPCC’s science reports.

• The flawed IPCC science reports are the most important scientific basis for EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

• On the critical issue of whether man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change, EPA relied nearly exclusively on the work of the IPCC.

• EPA accepted the IPCC’s conclusions wholesale, without doing an independent review. Therefore, EPA failed to uncover key errors in the IPCC reports that ultimately were incorporated into the endangerment finding.

• EPA claims separately that it also relied on the work of the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). But the USGCRP is closely linked with the IPCC. For example, of the 35 members who worked on a key 2006 USGCRP report, 23 also worked on the IPCC’s 2007 climate change science assessment.

• In short, the CRU emails reveal scientists who worked together on the major reports that form the so-called “consensus.” The emails show that there is no consensus and that EPA’s endangerment finding should be scrapped. (source)

Global warming/Climate Change/Cap and Trade legislation is no longer viable and should no later be able to get out of even the most irresponsible of Congresses in any form imaginable. And the EPA should drop all attempts to force needless laws involving the regulation of carbon on the American people.

Sadly this Congress and the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration have proven to be irresponsible enough to enact laws based on false scientific claims. It only remains to be seen if they will.


  1. Anonymous5:28 AM

    Inhofe is a doofus who couldn't even run a real estate business, a corrupt reptile in the pocket of big business, and just generally an all-round female organ.


  2. Anonymous7:58 AM

    My oh My, looks like we found ourselves an upset moonbat afraid of the light of TRUTH

  3. Yes we are the doofuses who are absolutely correct that Al Gore Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is a hoax.

    So judging by your pointless ad hominem comment you were one of the countless suckers that was taken in by this what exactly does that make YOU?

  4. Anonymous9:10 AM

    A Hit and Run doofus from the Mad Lib Left Progressive Movement has made gratuitous baseless comments, and having shat, moves on to his (her?)(its?) next Anonymous triumph.

    So pleased not to have met you!