Thursday, December 17, 2009

Okyay Debunks Climate Change Report

It is rather astonishing that anyone takes Al Gore's tin foil hat theory of climate change seriously after the e-mails revealing that much if not all of the climate change research has been doctored. Raquel Okyay aims to further debunk the claims of the die-hard ideologues and extremists who dominate the United States government and the autistic left. Raquel, a distinguished voice in Ulster County, New York politics, has been researching the facts behind the report behind the meeting of environmentalists in Copenhagen. Raquel writes:

>I admit that I have been skeptical of man-made global warming from the get go. For one thing Al Gore does not impress me one bit with his “end of the world” predictions, knowing full well that an ulterior motive is at bay. But it wasn’t until I started reading “Climate Change Reconsidered — The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” (“Reconsidered”) that I realized that not only does it appear that Gore is dead wrong on his (and others) theory of man-made climate change, but the entire movement, that bases its findings on biased and inconclusive science, is really about perpetrating a global socialist society aimed at redistributing wealth on an international scale.

>Much of the language and direction of the meeting of Environmentalists at Copenhagen is based upon four Reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) originally published in 1990 with its fourth Assessment published in 2007. The panel, assembled by the United Nations (“UN”), sought to present legislative language so as to bind sovereign countries to reduce UN directed carbon emission, as well as force industrialized nations to fund carbon emission standards and applications on non-industrialized nations.

Read Raquels analysis here.


Anonymous said...

Let me agree with everything that you say about climate change. But please answer this question: Do cars use oil and do they emit carbon dioxide. If they do use oil, is it not beneficial for us to reduce our consumption so that American wealth is not transferred to the Middle East?

Mitchell Langbert said...

I am not opposed to limiting pollution. Murray N. Rothbard had an argument that I found interesting. In the 19th century there were court cases where citizens claimed that pollution was a form of battery and tried to obtain damages from the polluters. The courts threw out this argument. At the time, there was likely a utilitarian argument in favor of pollution, but the judges' decisions (I have no citations) could not have been consistent with the fundamental approach to rights used in the Declaration of Independence. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not imply the right to harm others. Judge Richard Posner has writeen a textbook on law and economics in which he argues that judges have acted to optimize efficiency. This is a utilitarian argument. If true, the reason for the judges' mistaken belief that encouraging pollution will maximize social welfare is an antiquated view of social welfare. Clearly, pollution does harm to us, including diseases like cancer. Also, there is value in a clean environment. A trip to China in 2003 convinced me of that.

That said, the way to balance the costs of pollution with the benefits (e.g., in increased industrial production) is either through an explicit tort system devised by the courts (where the courts establish standards of wrong doing that are stricter than today) or legislation accomplishing the same thing. A moderate cap and trade system where realistic limits on pollution are coupled with the ability to sell rights is also conceivably workable.

But the Democrats do not aim to maximize social welfare or the balance the need for a clean environment with the need for progress in other ways. They have adopted absolutist standards (the cap and trade bill as it was originally proposed included, I believe, retroactive standards on homeowners that would have cost each American homeowner thousands of dollars). Moreover, there is a willingness to hand decision making to national and international authority which poses a threat to freedom. Instead of talking in terms of costs and benefits and balancing progress with limits on pollution the Democrats and environments are full of extremist, absolutist solutions that will be costly. The claim of global warming, for instance, has become an obsession with this movement. Rather than debate the question intelligently, the Democrats have produced falsified research. Their arguments are absolutist and do not pretend to be scientific. The press then reports these extremist findings as though they are facts. The Democrats have demonstrated that they are a party opposed to reason, and therefore not to be taken seriously.

That said, I agree that it is beneficial to us to reduce consumption of anything, including oil. Buying a resource from another country is not transferring wealth. The reason we buy oil is to produce wealth. In other words, the benefit of the oil exceeds the cost. If the price of oil rises sufficiently, alternatives will be found. But I do not believe that purchasing oil from the Middle East is so maleficent a result that government is needed to alter market processes.

Certainly, there is little in common between the Middle Easterners are demons argument and the claim that there is global warming. I suspect that there will be alternative fuels coming into being as the real price of oil rises.

Raquel Okyay said...

In an answer to your question, Anonymous, we can reduce consumption of foreign oil, by investing in our own oil and gas in America and boosting the economy at the same time. But government officials, mostly Democrats, being pressured by heavy handed Environmentalists will not let us.

Anonymous said...

Please let me answer questions for "Anonymous.

-"is it not beneficial for us to reduce our consumption so that American wealth is not transferred to the Middle East?"

Mrs. Clinton just came out and commented on $100,000,000,000.00 to give to "other countries" PER YEAR in name of climate change,.i.e. Global warming. (while 30,000 scientist are now suing' Al Gore for fraud.)

American wealth is going to be transferred to the Middle East and EVERY other direction, WEST, SOUTH, and NORTH. This subject is not about oil, climate change, or global warming. Its about transfer of wealth.

-"Do cars use oil and do they emit carbon dioxide. If they do use oil, is it not beneficial for us to reduce our consumption"

You can take every car in the world off the street (with no affect on climate change) and American wealth is still going to be transferred to the Middle East. i.e. Mrs. Clinton's gift of $900,000,000.00 to Hamas to ease there suffering after Israel bombed them in response to their Israel's children in schools getting bombed every day by Hamas.

Maybe you should consider trying to stop Hamas bombings of children and leave our cars alone to do what they where intended to do. Now THAT would help keep American wealth from being transferred to the Middle East.

Focus your concern here Mr. Anonymous,
on all the children, NOT cars that use oil and emit carbon dioxide.