Med COIN-Bloggen kommenteres løbende på dagsaktuelle emner. Vi vil søge at præge debatten, sådan at de skjulte konsekvenser ved nye former for indgreb, afgifter, skatter, forbud bliver gjort mere synlige.
Washington, D.C., October 6, 2009―In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.
In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.
In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.
Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
See also: Patrick J. Michaels: The Dog Ate Global Warming
A radically different view of global warming science has emerged in recent years contrary to the shrill gloom-and-doom projections that are so popular in Washington and elsewhere. In the new book Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know, Cato scholar and University of Virginia scientist Patrick Michaels explains this consistent alternative view of climate change, which has arisen in the peer-reviewed scientific literature yet receives little public attention. Why, for example, have the last 12 years shown no net surface warming? What does this say about projections from the United Nations- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? What's the relationship between hurricanes and global warming? Are editors who issue dramatic projections rewarded over those who publish findings of more moderate impacts? Michaels will demonstrate evidence for modest climate change impacts and propose that we continue our adaptation to these changes.
Both presidential candidates want to do more to address the threat of climate change. In your opinion, what is the best way to tackle climate change from a public policy standpoint?
[Patrick J. Michaels:]
- Do the politically incorrect and seemingly impossible thing: nothing right now. No carbon tax. No cap-and-trade hidden tax. No emissions cap. Why? First, the rate of warming is very modest, meaning that there is plenty of time to develop new or modified forms of energy production that will emit less carbon dioxide. If those are desired goods (and efficient products generally are), preserving the capital for investment in them (by individuals) rather than taking it away for government to invest (with taxes) is a more efficient way to get to a more efficient future. Read more here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n4.pdf (page 6)