Stunner: EPA’s CO2 ‘Hot Spot’ ‘Simply Does Not Exist’
May 2, 2017 | By The Association of Mature American Citizens
from – WND.com
The theory of human-caused global warming is straightforward. The level of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide, or CO2, is rising in the atmosphere, causing a worldwide increase in temperatures that ultimately will have a catastrophic effect on the planet.
To prevent this catastrophe, a vast regulatory infrastructure needs to be created, even if it means sacrificing jobs, economic efficiency, personal freedoms or national sovereignty itself.
But what if CO2 isn’t a pollutant?
That’s precisely the shocking finding of a new report from statistician Jim Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who contend the Environmental Protection Agency erred when it ruled CO2 is a pollutant in 2009.
The researchers claim they could find no evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations “have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that we analyzed.”
“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” the report said.
Brian Sussman, a former meteorologist and the author of “Eco-Tyranny: How The Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,” hailed the report as a devastating blow to what he argues is a phony movement.
“The left wants the public to believe that human-caused climate change is scientific law, like the laws of gravity and motion,” he told WND. “Instead, human-caused climate change/global warming is a flawed hypothesis that should be discarded into the dustbin of other failed theories. Referring to carbon dioxide – a natural atmospheric component necessary for life – as a pollutant is insane. It’s no different than labeling H2O a pollutant.”
But the EPA did make the “insane” decision to label CO2 a pollutant in 2009, thus providing a justification for the the Obama administration to issue sweeping regulations cracking down on energy companies, industrial facilities, farms and vehicle manufactures.
Recently, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., author of “The Greatest Hoax,” denounced the kinds of tactics Obama’s EPA employed. He told WND’s Alicia Powe the “greatest problem we’ve had in this country has emanated from the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“[The EPA] was really set up to be concerned about the environment and pass regulations that we needed to do,” Inhofe said. “But then with the Obama administration, he got away from that and started worrying about regulating things the American people don’t want… The thing that President Obama did was try to get things through regulation that he couldn’t get through legislation.”
Marc Fitch, author of “Shmexperts: How Ideology And Power Politics Are Disguised As Science,” contends the global warming industry exemplifies the faux “expertise” he claims is harming so many Americans.
“What’s truly sad and funny about this entire episode is that it took a study to determine that CO2, a gas that supports all life on earth, is not a pollutant,” he said. “Plants need it to live and mammals exhale it and yet it was somehow labeled by the government as a pollutant. This is a point that has been repeatedly made by global warming skeptics over the years. The news is as revelatory as finding that ‘water is wet’ but it seems some people need to be reminded of those simple facts every now and then.”
Fitch accused the liberal media of misleading Americans about CO2 and the larger global warming issue.
“Branding is everything and the mainstream media has done a fine job in branding CO2 as the ‘enemy within’ without ever questioning the basic premise as to whether or not CO2 is really a problem,” he explained. “They have used the ‘consensus’ idea but have never bothered looking into the nuances of that finding, nor the arguments that debated those findings. The term ‘consensus’ is just a cheap and easy way to ignore any differing conclusions or the opinions of scientists who disagree.
“They also never bother to say what the ‘consensus’ is about and what it is not about. There most certainly is not a consensus that supports the hyperbolic alarmist claims made by some of the movement’s most vocal supporters. So to say there is a scientific consensus and then cite Al Gore’s predictions of melted ice caps and New York City underwater, conflates two very different positions. It tries to give scientific credence to ridiculous predictions.”
But both Sussman and Fitch said “science” itself, like the media, has become hopelessly politicized.
“Global warming,” asserts Sussman, simply functions as an excuse for leftists to fulfill their political goals. The supposed scientific rationale behind the agenda is all but irrelevant.
“The left sees global warming/climate change as their magic key to destroy industrial capitalism and implement socialism,” he said. “In the process it’s also a scandalous opportunity for a few wealthy liberals to make loads of money off of green investment scams that are subsidized with taxpayer dollars. The left, aided by their friends in the liberal media, are so stubborn and long-suffering that theylll never cave on this one; they won’t let the facts get in the way of their ideology.”
Sussman similarly dismissed the recent “March for Science,” not as a defense of scientific but as a “fresh public venue for Trump haters to parade their ignorant nonsense.”
And Fitch urged Americans and those who value real knowledge to resist the politicization of science and the dogma surrounding “global warming.”
“The March for Science was a confusing event,” he commented. “It risks associating the term ‘science’ with ‘left-wing politics’ which would ultimately not be good for those who claim a scientific mindset. But what I think is more damaging is the idolization of science. It risks becoming religious with people marching through the streets proclaiming that if we just all looked to science we would find utopia, heaven on Earth.
“Science is a practice, not an entity, but it is being treated like some god that must be appeased with praise and money. It is this same reason that I think many of the people marching for science were probably dyed in the wool global warming alarmists. They have created a religion out of global warming and science is supposedly their god. But, like many religions, dissent is not tolerated well and anyone who disagrees is branded a heretic.”
