Thursday, October 04, 2007



By Steven Milloy



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html



A trillion dollars doesn't buy what it used to - at least when it
comes to global warming, according to a new analysis from the
Environmental Protection Agency.



Last July, this column reported that the latest global warming
bill - the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, introduced by Sens.
Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. - would cost
taxpayers more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years and untold
trillions of dollars in subsequent decades.



This week, the EPA sent its analysis of the bill's impact on
climate to Bingaman and Specter. Now we can see what we'd get for
our money, and we may as well just build a giant bonfire with the
cash and enjoy toasting marshmallows over it.



For reference purposes, the current level of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. The EPA estimates
that if no action is taken to curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 would be 718 ppm by 2095.



If the Bingaman-Specter bill were implemented, however, the EPA
estimates that CO2 levels would be 695 ppm - a whopping reduction
of 23 ppm.



The EPA also estimated that if all countries - including China,
India, Brazil and other developing nations - curb CO2 emissions,
the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 491 ppm in 2095,
including the above-mentioned 23 ppm reduction from the
implementation of the Bingaman-Specter bill.



So it appears that no matter how you slice it, Bingaman-Specter
is worth a 23 ppm-reduction in atmospheric CO2 by 2095. But what
are the climatic implications of this reduction in terms of
global temperature? After all, we are talking about global
warming.



Although the EPA didn't pursue its analysis that far, figuring
out the implications are readily doable using the assumptions and
formulas of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Under the no-action scenario (718-to-695 ppm),
the IPCC formulas indicate that the multitrillion-dollar
Bingaman-Specter bill might reduce average global temperature by
0.13 degrees Celsius.



Under the maximum regulation scenario (514-to-491 ppm),
Bingaman-Specter might reduce average global temperature by 0.18
degrees Celsius. Actual temperature reductions are likely to be
less since these estimates rely on the IPCC's alarmist-friendly
assumptions and formulas.



The question, then, becomes this: Is it really worth trillions of
taxpayer dollars over 90 years to perhaps reduce global
temperatures by 0.13-0.18 degrees Celsius? If you can't answer
that question, consider this.



Under the no-action scenario, average global temperature might be
1.2 degrees Celsius higher in 2095 than it is today, once again
using conservative IPCC assumptions and formulas. Under the
maximum-regulation scenario, average global temperature might be
1.03 degrees Celsius higher than today. (For reference purposes,
the estimated total increase in average global temperature for
the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.)



So what's the difference in mean global temperature between the
no-action scenario and the maximum-regulation scenario? Could it
be a whopping 0.17 degrees Centigrade? Is that what global
warming hysteria is all about?



The Bingaman-Specter bill, then, would cost taxpayers trillions
of dollars and produce virtually nothing in terms of temperature
outcome. But the pain of Bingaman-Specter doesn't stop with
trillions of taxpayer dollars. The heart of the Bingaman-Specter
bill is a so-called cap-and-trade system in which CO2 emission
limits (caps) would be decreed and certain businesses and other
special interest group emitters (such as farmers and states)
would be given permits to emit CO2.



Emitters that have extra permits could sell them in the open
market to emitters that weren't lucky enough to get free permits
and that need permits. Extra permits, as such, are essentially
free money.



Proponents of the cap-and-trade scheme - generally speaking,
conniving environmentalists who want to appear to be
business-friendly and special interest emitters who want to feed
at the taxpayer trough - portray it as a "market-based" approach
to addressing global warming concerns.



Not only is cap-and-trade not "market-based," highly respected
economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan, Arthur Laffer and Harvard University's Greg Mankiw,
say cap-and-trade will cause significant economic harm.



In a recent paper sponsored by the Free Enterprise Education
Institute, a think tank with which I am affiliated, Laffer said
that a cap-and-trade scheme would act as a constraint on the
energy supply - much like the 1970s-era Arab oil embargoes and
other energy crises. He estimates that cap-and-trade would shrink
the U.S. economy by 5.2 percent and reduce family income by
$10,800 by 2020.



So the Bingaman-Specter bill not only would waste taxpayer money,
but it would harm economic growth and reduce family income - all
without affecting global temperature in any sort of meaningful or
even detectable way.



Although the EPA acknowledged, "Since the variation in cumulative
global greenhouse gas emissions are small under
[Bingaman-Specter], the variation in the resulting CO2
concentrations are small," this only hints at the bill's
futility.



There can be little doubt as to why the EPA failed to carry
through the ultimate implications of the 23 ppm impact of
Bingaman-Specter. The agency would have "officially" exposed the
bill and global warming alarmism as utterly absurd.



Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He
is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an
adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


-- 


Regards

Bonzo

Leftists just KNOW what is good for us. Conservatives need
evidence

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

Bonzo wrote:

> Thursday, October 04, 2007
> 
> 
> 
> By Steven Milloy

...renowned right wing liar.

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
in message news:R0sOi.5054$9F1.1167@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" 
wrote
> >> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
> >> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
> >> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
> >> 2001 14.48  ************************o
> >> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
> >> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
> >> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
> >> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
> >> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
> >>
> >>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
>
>Here is a plot of the DATA  (Not some "fit") ...

Looks like a horizontal line to me!

1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
in message news:_gBOi.7302$xa2.1360@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" 
wrote
> >> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
> >> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
> >> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
> >> 2001 14.48  ************************o
> >> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
> >> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
> >> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
> >> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
> >> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
> >>
> >>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
>
Looks like a horizontal line to me!

1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?