Is the U.S. Government Underestimating the Cost of Climate Change?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Be wary of climate policy development

PAUL CHESSER

GUEST COLUMNIST

Imagine you are an advocacy group and want to sway a government's policy development, but really want to keep your activism a secret. You could learn a lot by observing and then avoiding the practices of the Center for Climate Strategies, a group of global warming worrywarts.

CCS in recent years has approached many states, including Washington, with an inexpensive, tantalizing offer: to establish and manage a process for climate change policy development. The results are a study legitimized by government that promotes onerous regulations, property rights infringement through smart growth initiatives, and new taxes and fees on fuels and utilities.

CCS operates in Washington in nearly the same way it's worked in every other state where it's been hired. First a governor (such as Gov. Chris Gregoire) issues an executive order declaring global warming a problem that must be confronted through state policy. Then a so-called stakeholder (political appointees and special interests, really) panel considers dozens of CCS-created policy options -- most of which impinge upon individual rights, increase energy costs, or add to the cost of government -- that ostensibly reduce CO2 emissions in the state. CCS holds the hand of the group through several meetings and its decision-making, until the threats to personal liberty and financial well-being are established as official government philosophy. Ideally (to CCS), legislatures will adopt them and add to everyone's cost of living. Nanny-staters celebrate.

But believe it or don't, CCS says it does not take a position on climate change solutions or push states into their greenhouse gas emissions decisions. Executive director Tom Peterson told me in an interview months ago, "(CCS) does not have an advocacy mission, and it doesn't have an advocacy history."

But CCS' concealment of its activism is like the fat kid standing behind a flagpole in a game of hide and seek.

Start with its funding. CCS comes to states promising to bring money with them to pay for their greenhouse-gas reduction development. Who foots the bill? Several foundations on the global warming panic train: the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The (Ted) Turner Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Energy Foundation, and many others. For example, the state of Washington is paying only $200,000 for CCS' services -- half of what their cheap process has cost in other states.

Then CCS controls the entire policy development: the agenda, scheduling and oversight of their meetings; the CO2 reduction options that stakeholders consider; analysis (which is not an examination of cost/benefit or climate impact) of those options; the voting process; the changing and/or elimination of options; and the writing of all meeting minutes, presentations and reports.

Virtually every one of CCS's greenhouse gas-reducing options, which stakeholders find almost impossible to eliminate or alter (as if they wanted to) because the voting procedures are stacked against it, will curtail individual freedom or further burden taxpayers and consumers. Rather than surveying stakeholders in an up-or-down vote, options are instead considered already approved unless enough members (who are political appointees, with almost no scientists or economists) are bold and knowledgeable enough to object to them.

CCS has conducted this cookie-cutter process in more than a dozen states, and more are in its sights. The motives, tactics and plans are not hard to see, but they are a threat.

State government watchdogs and free-market believers need to tag that kid behind the flagpole. He is only getting fatter.

http://www.seattlepi...tepolicy26.html

Yes and I have read this about this group but there are others and it is worldwide now but why do they do this? What possible motive can there be? Who benefits and why?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you agree that it is a theory only so far? Good. I never said that this theory is built from hocus pocus even though it is predictions only based. When you say that anything is reproducible from climate models then all you are saying is that computers that are programmed by humans show that this theory may be worth checking into. Lets see the programs they use to show this. What data are they feeding into the computer. Are they only showing manmade stuff and what percentage is added from natural effects? This is computer generated and the computer will show only what data is fed it and even then it has to be programmed right. Anything can skewer the results this way. Now a computer generated result can be helpful but far from being a firm conclusion.

Yes a scientist being paid for by Exxon or any entity can and should be looked at as a possible conflict of interest but are you saying that them getting funded by the Feds should not?

Climate models are based upon well-established laws of physics and use a wealth of actual observations, but lets assume that you are right and all these bodies of science that study climate have skewed the results to fit a certain agenda (whatever that is) for the Federal Gov't. These climate models existed under various administrations, including the last one (Bush) which did not accept Global Warming as real. So if the person or persons telling them to change their data to fit a certain agenda, why aren't we seeing a shift over the last 30 years in which these climate models have been created?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Be wary of climate policy development

PAUL CHESSER

Be wary of guys like Paul Chesser. He is part of the Heartland Institute which fights against every kind of regulation, including on tobacco, labeling any scientific studies and data that results in regulations as 'junk science' as these are the same folks who denied the smoke from tobacco was harmful.

Although Heartland calls itself "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary," its has been a frequent ally of, and funded by, the tobacco industry. According to a 1995 internal report by Philip Morris USA (PM) on its corporate contributions budget, the company uses its contributions "as a strategic tool to promote our overall business objectives and to advance our government affairs agenda," in particular by supporting "the work of free market 'think tanks' and other public policy groups whose philosophy is consistent with our point of view.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

......

How's that for conflict of interest?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Climate models are based upon well-established laws of physics and use a wealth of actual observations, but lets assume that you are right and all these bodies of science that study climate have skewed the results to fit a certain agenda (whatever that is) for the Federal Gov't. These climate models existed under various administrations, including the last one (Bush) which did not accept Global Warming as real. So if the person or persons telling them to change their data to fit a certain agenda, why aren't we seeing a shift over the last 30 years in which these climate models have been created?

Yes they have and there are actually other climate models that show a different outcome but we never see these.

Here is one link but there are many if you want to do an actual google search yourself. If you want I will do it and post the links here. I can get more into the hoax side or more to the actual programming programs side or anything in between that you want. To be more blunt though, you can't consider a science to be so by a computer program.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12833-climate-is-too-complex-for-accurate-predictions.html

Now I will post a few more links for you to peruse but some of them are pretty dry reading.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Be wary of guys like Paul Chesser. He is part of the Heartland Institute which fights against every kind of regulation, including on tobacco, labeling any scientific studies and data that results in regulations as 'junk science' as these are the same folks who denied the smoke from tobacco was harmful.

http://www.sourcewat...tland_Institute

......

How's that for conflict of interest?

I can play the conflict of interest game too and a lot. Here is one little one but stands to make millions.

http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/co2/climatepanel.htm

[luckytxn 2,265]

Be wary of guys like Paul Chesser. He is part of the Heartland Institute which fights against every kind of regulation, including on tobacco, labeling any scientific studies and data that results in regulations as 'junk science' as these are the same folks who denied the smoke from tobacco was harmful.

http://www.sourcewat...tland_Institute

......

How's that for conflict of interest?

Here is a article but it has links to about 50 other articles that show a conflict of interest to most of the scientists involved in the theory.

http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

There is a lot there and I can post links all night long showing as many as you want but to make it simple. There are a lot of conflict of interests on both sides. This is no science but a theory. We are allowing the Feds to take our hard earned dollars from us to fund a theory and allow them to control us citizens in the name of a theory.