If The AGW Debate Is Settled, Why The Different Answers?

11 Dec, 2009 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

Funny stuff from those who are supposed to be “the experts”

Which is it–6 feet or 3.5 feet?

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

Unsurprisingly, they were the only two to testify before the committee. God forbid they call others with other views. Anyhow, science isn’t about guessing, or pulling out Gandalf’s Palintir. It’s about hard answers.

…Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), a Republican member of the committee, told CNSNews.com that the discrepancy “raises the issue of the credibility of proponents of the argument that the globe is both warming and the cause of that warming is man-made from greenhouse gases.”

“These are the two most prominent–at least from the standpoint of government position–scientists in the nation on this issue, and they can’t agree,” Shadegg said.

“And yet, we’re being told the science is settled, and Mr. Gore is saying there’s no longer a debate. That’s funny, it looks to me like–there may not be a debate, but there certainly is not a consensus and there certainly are discrepancies by the two top scientists within the government supposedly on the entire topic.”

Bingo! And through all Holdren and Lubchenco’s alarmist testimony, they still failed to do one thing: link the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age mostly or solely to Mankind.

This couldn’t all be about money and control, could it? Especially money

A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs.

The Tata Group headquartered in Mumbai anticipates receiving windfall profits of up to nearly $2 billion from closing the Corus Redcar steelmaking plant in Britain, with about half of the savings expected to result from cashing in on carbon credits granted the steelmaker by the European Union under the EU’s emissions trading scheme, or ETS.

Hmm, like Gore, Pachauri could make a boatload of money by pushing junk science that causes countries to sign treaties and pass legislation that forcibly takes money from it’s citizens and moves it around. How is this different from an organized crime scheme?

Good news from California, though! The Governator will fly to Copenhagen, with an entourage of 20, to share California’s climate change story. No mention of whether Arnold will discuss Cali’s unemployment rate of 12.5%, 4th worse in the USA, nor having one of the highest costs of living in the country. Passing out IOUs in place of tax refunds and payment for services. Budget woes. Etc. But, hey, let’s slap some more taxes and restrictions on people. That’ll work!