Cei leads coalition letter on commission on climate security watts up with that wikipedia electricity generation

###########

The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support electricity history in india for the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. The commission would consist of a small number of distinguished experts on climate-related science and national security. It would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level review of the Fourth National Climate Assessment and other official reports relating to climate and its implications for national security. Its deliberations would be subject to the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.

In our view, an independent review of these reports is long electricity symbols worksheet overdue. Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports. Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts gasco abu dhabi address of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred. An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method.

The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades. Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case grade 9 electricity quiz for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.

We note that defenders of the climate consensus have la gas prices map already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission. We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.

Mr. President, you have made a number of comments in recent years expressing doubts about the global warming consensus. Many of the signers of this letter have been similarly skeptical. Without prejudging the results, we think that a review of climate science produced by an independent, high-level commission would be a fair test for your views (and ours): either it would provide a sound basis for revising your views or it would confirm your views and gas after eating pasta confound your critics.

By now, the OCO-2 data team must have enough CO2 data to show us where the sinks and sources of CO2 are and match that up with the MLO record and other surface readings. OCO-2 monthly gallery products have electricity related words not been produced by NASA since mid-2007. (Note: While the large level-2 dataset is available for download, the data file sizes (terabytes) and complexity in geospatial assembly makes this an endeavor that only a well funded technical team with significant computing-IT resources can handle.)

From this OCO-2 determination, understand more clearly what the US CO2 source and sink contributions are to the global fluxes. We simply cannot use estimates emissions from energy usage records, but hp electricity bill payment online actual data to show what the CO2 fluxes are from the areas under US control versus the rest of the world, especially where the UNFCCC COP process sets no practical emission limits like China.

If this is about understanding anthropogenic sources of climate change in regards to national security, then we have to acknowledge we cannot control China’s CO2 nor does the IPCC COP set any limits on it for at least another dozen years. If any reductions we can make are meaningless to the CO2 global flux with China continuing to accelerate fossil fuel burning,we are simply harming our national security via weakening our economy to chase unobtainable temperature goals by 2050, much less 2100.

Finally, I’d note that atmospheric spectrophotometry is exactly within Dr Happer’s recognized expertise skill set. Thus this could be a clear route wd gaster battle for Dr Happer to silence critics who try to assert he is not technically suited to evaluate the Climate Change industry’s technical foundations. And the CO2 surface records comparison with OCO-2’s satellite record would go straight to the heart of the alarmists’ arguments, that their repeated demands for prompt climate action on the US control of it CO2 emissions relative to the rest of the world.