Courts Not Scientists Sneaked Greenhouse Gas Sham into Law
Written by John O´Sullivan
Even though neither U.S. presidential candidate is talking up man-made global warming behind the scenes courts are hard at work making laws based on controversial greenhouse gas science.
An undemocratic, largely unseen shift in American law is now taking place. You would never know it from the media facade but 2012 has witnessed an inexorable Big Green legal juggernaut driving across America. Judges not voters are at the wheel and by stealthy maneuvering we are being steamrollered by secret government diktat rather than electoral preference. It is happening away from the public political barometer because the mainstream media focuses voter minds on believing the race for the Whitehouse is all about the grassroots economy.
With $3 billion per year in government climate funding up for grabs neither Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney nor Democrat President Barack Obama appear willing to debate the American courts’ back door imposition of new draconian climate laws. Left unchecked more democracies are headed for the abyss of unreasoned totalitarianism.
Voters don’t know it yet but our courts shifted gear to drive us all to accept – by imposition of law – the cornerstone of man-made global warming science: the greenhouse gas hypothesis. All this despite repeated concerns expressed by conscientious climatologists. For example, only last week another top climate scientist unswerved by government bribes (Dr. John Christy) gave evidence to the U.S. House Energy and Power Subcommittee declaring: “I’ve often stated that climate science is a ‘murky’ science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do.”
Despite Christy’s candor about the uncertainties two western governments this year rendered crucial legal judgments unequivocally enshrining the GHE – the cornerstone of all mainstream climatology – as incontestable legal and scientific fact.
In this new topsy-turvy world last June the US Supreme Court ruled that “we give an extreme degree of deference to the [EPA] agency when it is evaluating scientific data within its technical expertise.” Right there judges, as with policymakers, turned a blind eye to the truth about this“theory” which has no less than 63 competing variants taught at leading universities – many in fatal contradiction with each other as revealed in the best-selling climate science book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon.‘
The law has gone ahead and made an ass of itself over an issue even the scientific community explicitly accepts it has never resolved by experimental tests in our atmosphere. Today green-friendly courts are applying the slipshod ruling of Massachusetts el a.-v-Environment Protection Agency in which Justice Stevens declared:
“A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide [CO2] is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a ‘greenhouse gas.’“
Judges Go Where Scientists Fear to Tread
But with billions in subsidies and research grants still very much up for grabs despite the recession the sham appearance of scientific certainty still drives this scam forward. Much of the foundation claims for GHE global warming are premised on scientific research carried out behind closed doors deliberately hidden from the public. Without shame government agencies such as NASA defy freedom of information requests to disclose the root of their clandestine work. Yet despite the subterfuge the bold claims are that America’s 2012 Budget “sustains the President’s commitment to global-change research as part of a government-wide effort to understand, predict, mitigate, and adapt to climate change and transition the United States to a clean-energy economy.”
So precisely how much are American taxpayers doling out to “save the planet”? No less than a cool $2.6 billion this year via the multi-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 20.3 percent or $446 million over the 2010 enacted level. No wonder the political elite, in these times of extreme austerity, aren’t letting voters in on the secret of this monumentally unjustified and wasteful redistribution of wealth. When we look closer we may determine that it is by the connivance of government-appointed court judges working in tandem with fellow government scientists that our money is being stolen by the deft use of two powerful legal precedents from the United States Supreme Court.
In 2007 the Supreme Court made its first big play to dodge the scientific arguments and decide that Earth’s atmosphere does indeed act “like a greenhouse.”In 2012 America’s top judges then went a step further and validated into law the term “greenhouse gas” where before it lacked any valid scientific or legal definition. In our court system CO2 (the gas of most interest to tax grabbers) is now officially a dangerous and taxable “greenhouse gas” where before it was innocuous and widely used in greenhouses to augment plant growth.
Incredibly, the country’s top judges fail to note that the rise in temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide only “coincided” for the period 1975-1998, a blink of an eye in geologic time. Of no apparent concern to the courts, Romney or Obama is that for the past 400,000 years the universally accepted Vostok ice core data shows that rises in CO2 always FOLLOW rises in temperature. This compelling evidence proves this benign trace gas cannot possibly drive global temperatures and its atmospheric level is merely a byproduct of any planet-wide warming.
Forget the Facts Government Science is Right
Other countries driven by their rich elite are also adopting this insidious anti-science US government policy. Earlier this September in New Zealand the Auckland High Court followed the American example and ruled in the matter of NZCSET-v- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) that only government climatologists can be expert witnesses in court proceedings concerning greenhouse gas issues, regardless of whatever the broader scientific community says. New Zealand’s government researchers, using the same brand of secret science, imputed that human emissions of CO2 were harming Earth’s climate and the court agreed without question.
It may only be a matter of time before the courts in the UK, Australia and Canada follow suit. But independent climate researchers are doing all they can to speak out against this shocking bias. Among them is Principia Scientific International where climate researcher, Carl Brehmer lamented that not only does the US Supreme Court get the correlation/causation issue all wrong, but it fails to see how self-contradictory and unphysical are it’s assertions. Brehmer observed that judges have “ignored verifiable, observable scientific evidence to opine that any gas can act like a piece of solid glass (ceiling of a greenhouse) to prevent insolation from reaching the ground (trapping solar energy).”
Therefore lawyers, not scientists, are now writing the laws of physics to rule that a “greenhouse gas” is any gas that acts like a piece of solid glass (ceiling of a greenhouse) to prevent insolation from reaching the ground (trapping solar energy). By some miracle known only to them from their alternative universe this process simultaneously decreases Earth’s surface albedo (retarding the escape of reflected heat). That’s got to be one of the craziest non-sequiturs to be enshrined in law.
Zealous Environmental Lobbying Pays Off
Of great consequence are the following facts:
ñ The notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, which requires regulation, is now the federal legal precedent in the United States; the EPA is set to shut down more than 100 of the 500 coal-burning power U.S. plants over the next few years;
ñ The amount of electricity produced in the United States by coal powered plants has already been reduced to 1/3 down from ½;
ñ In an attempt to reduce carbon emissions enough food is currently being turned into ethanol that could feed over a million people per year – pushing up prices;
ñ Many countries have already instituted carbon taxes and others are contemplating it;
ñ Large-scale land grabs are underway worldwide which drive rural farmers off land their ancestors have owned for generations to be turned into “carbon sinks” that are then “sold” on the carbon market. 
ñ The plan is afoot to issue every person on the planet a “carbon ration card” which will track and ration all of the carbon dioxide that you personally produce as you go about living your life; [2.]
ñ It remains the standing intention of the “Club of Rome” and the “World Future Council” to foist upon the world’s civilizations a “zero carbon economy.” [3.]
PSI researcher Brehmer concludes, “Environmental extremists are all for turning off peoples’ electricity, burning their food for fuel, stealing their land for carbon sequestration, planning to tax every man, woman and child for breathing, and forcing people to live without being able to use fire for energy (because fire produces carbon dioxide).”
Nonetheless, independent (unpaid) researchers like those at PSI won’t quit in their fight to expose faux government science. They are adamant there exists no scientific basis to deprive our populations of access to plentiful, inexpensive electricity, to continue having food to eat, to continue owning land upon which to farm, to continue being free to breath without being taxed for breathing and to continue being able to use fire as an energy source. If a self-serving elite backed by misguided lawmakers, view these desires as “crimes against humanity” then their world of secrecy and subterfuge – where bad science makes bad policy – is headed for tumultuous conflict under a glaring light of reason.
[1.]”The specter of land grabs – or ‘carbon grabs’ – is pivotal to this emerging debate. We define carbon grabs as large scale appropriations of land and resources for global climate change mitigation benefits and profits from carbon markets.” ( See: Land Grab for Biochar? Narratives and Counter Narratives in Africa’s Emerging Biogenic Carbon Sequestration Economy, Leach M., Fairhead J., Fraser J., (April 2o11) Journal of Peasant Studies and University of Sussex.
[2.] “Under the proposals, all citizens would be given a personal carbon allowance, based on national targets for cutting CO2 emissions. People who take measures to cut the pollution they produce could sell their surplus. Those who continue to produce pollution above their personal cap would have to buy credits on the open market.” (See: Plan for ‘credit cards’ to ration individuals’ carbon use, Russell B., (July 19, 2006), The Independent).
[3.]“’This conference is not just about the destabilized climate. It’s about a socially and ecologically just economic model for developing and industrialized countries that will foster material prosperity for all without surpassing the natural limits of the planet. The time for the Zero Carbon Economy has come’, says Anders Wijkman, Vice President of the Club of Rome and Chair of the World Future Council’s Climate and Energy Commission.” (See: World Future Council calls on UN Climate Conference, World Future Council, (2009)).