Just a few notes on global warming--nationally and internationally. Internationally, according to wattsupwiththat.com, in an article by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch, it was noted that less than 20 per cent of the people at the UN working on issues that involve global warming have any training in climate science or related fields. Most of the members of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not scientists at all--the president of the group is an economist.
During a recent global warming debate, William Schlesinger was asked about the credentials of the IPCC members. According to the article at wattsupwiththat, this was his answer:
"First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had "some dealing with the climate." His complete answer was that he thought, "something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate." In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies."
You and I are as qualified to make judgments on climate change as the IPCC!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Environment Protection Agency is getting ready for the UN climate change talks schedules for December in Copenhagen. According to an article in yesterday's New York Times, the EPA is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials. The article goes on to state:
"Potentially, it's a huge mess, not only for E.P.A. but for state regulatory agencies, because the Clean Air Act is second only to the Internal Revenue Code in terms of complexity," said Mr. Holmstead, now director of environmental strategies at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.
He said that under the clean air law any source emitting more than 250 tons of a declared pollutant would be subject to regulation, potentially including schools, hospitals, shopping centers, even bakeries, which has prompted some critics to call it the "Dunkin' Donuts rule."
This has the potential to totally destroy the American economy. If carbon dioxide can be regulated (and eventually taxed--because the money part always shows up eventually), our economy can be totally crippled. This move would assure that Barack Obama would be a one-term President--assuming a fair election in four years and assuming a country where people would actually be able to get to the polling places!
Leave a comment