The House of Representatives of the US’s officially most Republican state has passed a resolution that “urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated”.
Utah’s legislature also “urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated”.
The resolution was passed on Tuesday 9th Feb with a 56-17 vote.
This does not have any legal weight in the United States, but does send a message.
It seems to have been delivered in the wake of all the ‘ClimateGate’ type revelations over the last few months.
The report started out with charging the climate change lobby as a conspiracy using flawed data and using tricks to maintain a gravy train. It was though eventually watered down to the need to investigate questionable data before the US should hand over billions of dollars in ‘green taxes’.
Utah is of course a large coal and oil producing state so has as vested an interest as do the climate change gravy train passengers. But the final draft does ask the pertinent question.
Meanwhile China has weighed in with the release of an internal Chinese government think-tank document, which was written directly after the Copenhagen talks. It seems to point towards the Chinese scepticism over the West’s motivation as they continued the “conspiracy to divide the developing world”. The Chinese would be very careful in future not to be forced into a deal with the developed world that put them at a disadvantage. The Chinese would not want to give up their own manufacturing and be relying on payments from the west to fund their development. Now, if the Chinese are distrusting of this whole reaction to climate change, then where does that leave the climate change debate?
Gordon Brown is in no doubt that climate change sceptics are going ‘against the grain’ of accepted climate scientific evidence. He has recently helped launch a new United Nations high level body, the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing. The aim of course being to raise money to help poor countries limit their climate change footprint and aid them in adapting to the effects of climate change. They want to raise Â£19 billion over the next three years rising to be a massive Â£63-Â£64 billion a year by 2020.
Even without consensus at Copenhagen, money is being pledged and spent on our behalf.
Just like the European Union project the Climate Change project also appears to have no brakes or an off button. And when the dust settles in decades to come I wonder if the accounts of either of these projects will ever have been balanced. Or will the funds (our taxes) have been syphoned off by those unknown never to be seen again? If we are to go down this route then we should demand open and transparent accounting of all the money. How the projects are decided, how the contractors are chosen and what recipient governments spend the money on. Otherwise the scope for corruption beggars belief.
But Professor Robert Watson, former chairman of the IPCC has said that the UN should investigate why so many errors appeared in its recent report that sat at the heart of Copenhagen. He said that if these were honest mistakes then some of the report would underplay climate change not totally over-egg it as the whole report seems to do.
Then there is John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a former lead author on the IPCC who said “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” whereas the IPCC report said it was 'unequivocal'.
To cap it all, Professor Phil Jones at the heart of the ClimateGate afair has told the BBC that there may be truth in the theory that the Earth was warmer in medieval times than it is now. He also said that there has been no statistically significant increase in global warming in the past 15 years.
His colleagues jumped to his defence to say he is bad with paperwork and that is the reason why he has failed to respond to Freedom of Information requests. One of them, Philip Campbell, had just been appointed to the investigating team and had to resign within hours due to voicing his support.
Billions have already been spent and billions more are due to be spent. Whole under-developed countries will, in effect, be reliant on the 'West' to allow their growth should this scam continue. Any small country wanting to develop will end up relying on permission from carbon trading or money from the developed world to do what they need to do. Their sovereignty is compromised. Their ability to help their own people is therefore also compromised.
What should really concern us in the UK (and elsewhere) is the thundering silence from all our politicians. None of them want to comment on this. They all realise that our entire society is underpinned by the money raised from 'green' taxes.
Gradually but emphatically the wheels are coming off of the whole climate change project. No rising temperatures, no melting ice caps, no rising sea levels. No need to tax us into oblivion, no need to stop countries developing. But a real need for proper politicians.
Now how do I get a tax rebate over this?