Topic category:  Climate/Climate Change/Weather

The EPA has drafted rules with which it plans to regulate emissions of six so-called greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF). The EPA proposal is based on the claim that these trace atmospheric gases are "pollutants" and capable of catastrophic global warming, despite the reality that they are naturally-occurring and climate has never been significantly affected by changes in any greenhouse gases.

While recent polls show an encouraging trend of American opinion away from the climate alarmists' view that humans are responsible for global warming caused by CO₂ emissions from using fossil fuels, there is still a considerable number of people, including those at the EPA, who have been duped by the constant drumbeat of outright lies and misinformation from the "usual suspects" in the print and television media and the junk science proclaimed by the small band of climate alarmist scientists and their chief benefactor, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

One of the worst purveyors of climate alarmist hysteria over the years has been Time Magazine with their annual "global warming" issue, an issue well-documented to be replete with grossly erroneous distortions of the global warming issue.

The most recent egregious example of Time Magazine's blatant misrepresentation is contained in a current article by Time Magazine's Bryan Walsh about the EPA's plans to regulate emissions of what they claim are dangerous greenhouse gases, including CO₂. In that article, Walsh asserts without substantiation:

"In truth, by any reasonable definition, the EPA has the right to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The scientific case is clear: global warming is dangerous and man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming; ergo those gases are pollutants that must be dealt with."

Without any supporting evidence, Walsh pronounces the "scientific case is clear" and then proceeds to a conclusion. What is the "scientific case" Walsh believes is "clear"? Does Walsh realize there are more than 31,000 US scientists (over 9,000 with PhD's), including preeminent physicists and atmospheric scientists, who, based on their scientific expertise in disciplines related to climate and climate change science strongly disagree with climate alarmists' claims upon which the EPA relies? Or is Walsh merely parroting alarmist hysteria because it sells? What credentials has Walsh earned that allow him to summarily ignore the great body of scientific knowlege that disagrees with his unsubstantiated and uninformed opinion?

Alarmists' claims that "global warming is dangerous and man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming; ergo those gases are pollutants that must be dealt with" is erroneous on all accounts.

If one who claims to be a journalist cannot even make his most important statement without committing an egregious grammatical blunder, then by what standard does he claim to have divined the scientific truth about climate change science that is at odds with the world's foremost experts?

Walsh's claim is wrong on each premise upon which his false conclusion is built:

• "global warming is dangerous": This oft-repeated mantra is contradicted by historic evidence. Contrast the great advances in human civilization during past warming episodes (Bronze age warming, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period) with the harsh agrarian conditions and plagues that marked cooling periods, notably the recent Little Ice Age. There is simply no evidence to support claims by climate alarmists like Walsh, yet there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary!
   
• "man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming": This is completely without any scientific substantiation. Indeed, the best scientific evidence available clearly comes to the opposite conclusion, namely, that human activity has no significant impact on climate and there is little chance that it ever will. Furthermore, not only are human emissions of CO₂ not responsible for significant global warming, neither is there any evidence in past climate that naturally occurring CO₂ in substantially higher amounts (up to 9000 ppm) has ever been a significant contributor to climate change.
  
  In his outstanding text (2005, Praxis Publishing, LTD), "Global Warming/Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology" climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux concludes, (page 120) "The greenhouse effect is not the cause of climate change" and (page 205), "The climate has not evolved in the past because of greenhouse gases, and there is consequently no scientific reason for it to evolve because of greenhouse gases either now or, a fortiori, in the future." Dr. Leroux did not rely upon conjecture-driven computer simulations (that cannot accurately simulate any significant climate period nor properly account for significant cooling forces such as precipitation and cloud formation) as does the IPCC. Leroux came to his conclusions by legitimate scientific processes of examination and investigation of real world data and the application of rigorous scientific analysis.
   
• "ergo those gases are pollutants that must be dealt with.": Since two false premises are hardly the basis for an accurate conclusion, it is clear that Walsh is simply parroting alarmist claims that he wants readers to believe and not what is justified by his false premises. Since real climate science demonstrates conclusively that there is no significant component of climate derived from human emissions of any greenhouse gases, including CO₂, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that the EPA has absolutely no foundation for labeling any greenhouse gas a "pollutant"!

Now, if that isn't enough for you, then consider this paradox of the EPA proposal:

Though false, let's accept the EPA's false premise that human emissions of greenhouse gases are capable of significant global warming.
 

However, undisputed atmospheric physics informs us that the vast portion of atmospheric (greenhouse) warming is from atmospheric water vapor.
 

Why then, is the EPA proposing to regulate every atmospheric greenhouse gas except water vapor?

If the EPA really believed the "science" it claims provides it with the power to regulate "six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF)—in the atmosphere", then why wouldn't it seek to regulate the most potent greenhouse gas, water vapor (H₂O)? There are many human activities that increase atmospheric water vapor. Just a few:

• Any manufacturing process for which water vapor is a byproduct.
• Agricultural irrigation (draws sequestered water from wells and spreads it over plants, much of the water simply evaporates and enters the atmosphere as water vapor).
• Residential lawn irrigation (see above).
• Firefighting with water.
• Electric generation using any process that requires steam (nuclear, coal, oil).
• Hydro-electric power generation that relies upon creation of an artificial reservoir (artificially increases the exposure of water to air, thus increasing evaporative creation of more water vapor).
• Drinking water reservoirs (see above).
• The proposed hydrogen fuel cell automobile (whose only byproduct is water vapor!).

The list goes on and on. You see, the real reason the EPA avoids labeling water vapor a "pollutant" is that we all depend on water for our survival, much like all plant life depends upon sufficient atmospheric CO₂ for survival. The whole EPA proposition about CO₂ being a "dangerous pollutant" would blow up in the EPA's face if the public realized the insanity of the EPA position.

The public will learn the truth only when they understand that, in their fraudulent attack on CO₂, climate alarmists necessarily demonize something as harmless and necessary for life as water vapor (H₂O)! Well, as the song goes, "you can't have one without the other." Either both CO₂ and H₂O are "dangerous pollutants" or neither one is a "dangerous pollutant"! Which is it, EPA?

It is clear that Walsh has failed to do his research. He is clearly not a scientist. He is not even a good journalist. Yet the nonsense he produces is evidently in perfect harmony with the views of Time Magazine's editors.

We can't stop Time Magazine from committing publishing suicide by driving readers and advertisers away with drivel like Walsh's. But we can do something about the overreaching nonsense being proposed by the EPA.

Unless you are one of a very few people who really want their automobile fuel prices to skyrocket to levels that make the $4-$5 range seem like a bargain and who won't mind their electric bills doubling, tripling, or quadrupling, and are prepared to absorb the enormous cost increases of everything that depends on energy and transportation, then you need to let the EPA know that their proposed regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is unjustified, ill-founded, likely devastating to our nation's struggling economy, and in the end will do nothing to impact future climate.

We can no longer afford the luxury of sitting idly by while politicians grab more power and raise our living costs simply because they are unwilling to acknowledge they've been duped by the massive scam perpetrated by the global warming alarmist industry.

Our planet is not threatened by global warming; but humanity is threatened by global ignorance and inaction!

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Biography - Bob Webster

Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.