For years, free-market fundamentalists opposed to government regulation have sought to create doubt in the public’s mind about the dangers of smoking, acid rain, and ozone depletion. Now they have turned those same tactics on the issue of global warming and on climate scientists, with significant success.
Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.
Even as the climate science becomes more definitive, polls show that public concern in the United States about global warming has been declining. What will it take to rally Americans behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?
The 2009 Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report provides a critical update to the global public on the latest climate science. The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report that supplements the IPCC AR4 in time for Copenhagen in December, 2009.
By now, everybody has heard about the Studyt out of Spain that supposedly proves that Obama’s green jobs program is a loss cause that will hurt our economy. I think there are numerous flaws with that study. In this update, we have Spain’s response to his claims, proof that his data was falsified, an explanation of how the renewable energy investment did not have the major negative impact on business, in Spain, that his analysis was too simplistic to be applied in any real world model, and what most economists believe is the major cause of Spain’s high unemployment rate. I will also bring to light extremely relevant facts, that the study fails to mention or factor in to the study, and review the US’s history and results from past renewable energy investments. That’s right we have been investing in renewable energy for years.