George Soros gave Ivanka's husband's business a $250 million credit line in 2015 per WSJ. Soros is also an investor in Jared's business.

Friday, January 7, 2011

George Bush Sr. greatly energized the EPA, was Al Gore before Al Gore was Al Gore. Acid Rain scam was model for Carbon Offsets Scam. Bush couldn't think of a reason why he should be president so he invented climate dangers

As with CO2, billions of taxpayer dollars were diverted from the poor and needy to imaginary dangers of sulfur dioxide. Simply adding some lime changed lakes to alkaline, assuming alkaline lakes were needed:
"On Tuesday  evening, July  25, Ned  Potter of  ABC News  did a
three-minute segment purporting to show  how acid rain (caused by
sulphur dioxide  -- SO2  -- emissions  from Midwestern utilities)
was killing trees in Camel's Hump Mountain in Vermont.
Aerial photos  showed a pattern  of dead or  dying tall spruce
trees.  We were informed acid  rain was sterilizing the soil.  An
environmentalist  guided  us  through  the  devastation.   It was
potent TV. It was also a hoax....

So the entire ABC acid rain story was  a fraud,
including Ned Potter's concluding statement  that 
  • ``doctors say acid rain is
  • responsible for 50,000 deaths a year.''
But  not  even the
Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA)  claims any  known deaths
from  sulphur dioxide  (SO2) emissions.   The 50,000  figure came
from one extreme  theoretical estimate in an analysis where half
the experts estimated zero health effects.
Sadly, this  is exactly  the kind  of nonsense President
Bush  has  unleashed  with   his  embrace  of  the  ``Green
Revolution'':  a  media  race  to  see  who  can  paint the
grimmest pictures.
He  also re-energized  the  EPA, which  has  a huge  power and
funding stake in doing the same.  These deadly incentives lead to
an awful lot of BS (bad science).
There is no better example of this than the EPA's wildly scary
1980 report suggesting acid rain  was causing a kind of ``aquatic
silent spring'' in Northeast America and Canada:
``It  is in  the  lakes and  streams  where the  most dramatic
effects of acid rain have  been observed.  The increasing acidity
of lakes  in North  America and  Europe has  been documented. ...
This  has led  to a  decrease  in populations  of fish  and other
aquatic organisms.''

This report led  to the establishment  of a 10-year scientific
study of the causes  and effects of acid  rain, or what is called
the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP).
Unfortunately  for  the   environmentalists,  this  assessment
actually  tried  to be  scientific,  that is,  to  avoid reaching
conclusions  first and  then  searching for  evidence  to support
them.

The result in 1987, after more  than $300 million was spent in
exhaustive study, was  to conclude essentially  that regional SO2
concentrations  were causing  no discernible  damage to  crops or
forests at present levels of acid rain emission (about 22 million
Also, the number of acid lakes  and streams was far lower than
the EPA had warned, affecting less than 2 per cent of the surface
water area  even in  the Adirondacks,  the most  heavily impacted
region.  And  the connections  between acid  rain and  acid lakes
were statistically too weak to correlate.

No Correlation Between Acid Rain and Acid Lakes

The   reaction    to   the    interim   assessment    by   the
environmentalists and their  allies in Congress  was fury and the
firing of  NAPAP's director,  Dr. Lawrence  Kulp, and  the demand
that the new director of NAPAP, Dr. James R. Mahoney, ``rewrite''
the report and  produce ``an implicit  repudiation of the interim
assessment.''
Yet just last April,  Mahoney was handed a  study by the EPA's
own  Direct Delayed  Response Project  (DDRP)  with a  chart that
shows no statistical correlation between acid rain deposition and
acidic lakes.  For New England, the correlation between acid rain
and acid lakes  is less than  0.16 (statistically insignificant),
compared with a correlation of  acid lakes with soil chemistry of
nearly 0.80.

That  data came  as no  surprise  to Dr.  Edward Krug,  of the
Illinois State Water  Survey, who authored  a 263-page April 1989
study  for  the  U.S. Department  of  Energy  (DOE).   This study
concluded that aquatic acidification  has little, if anything, to
do  with acid  rain  and everything  to  do with
  • land use, soil
  • chemistry and geology.
Lakes and  streams get  over 90 per  cent of  their water, not
from rain,  but from  the surface  runoff that  is filtered first
through very  acidic surface  soils and  organic matter  and then
through bedrock, which tends to neutralize that acidity.
In those areas where the forest surface is allowed to develop,
uncut, unharvested and unburnt, surface soil acidity builds up so
much that the bedrock below is hard pressed to neutralize it all.
This is  especially true in  steep mountainous  areas where water
runoff goes more directly  from the soil into  the lake or stream
or in those areas  like Cape Cod where  the underlying surface is
not rock but acidic vegetation such as sphagnum moss.

Paleolimnological  (lake sediment  analysis)  studies in
fact show that 90 percent  of the presently acidic lakes in
the Northeast and Scandinavia were acidic in pre-industrial
times.   Even  the  NAPAP  report  indicates  that  aquatic
acidification  is far  less  than thought.   Krug maintains
most of that is re-acidification.

What made some  of those lakes  become less acid  by the early
20th Century  was hundreds of  years of  clearcutting and burning
that  not  only  destroyed the  acidic  buildup  of  forest floor
organic material  but replaced  it with  ash, which  is alkaline.
Conversely, when those regions were then allowed to reforest, the
re-acidification process began.

As Dr. Krug pointed out in a 1983 article in Science magazine,
``In New  England, the volume  of standing wood  has increased by
about 70 percent between 1952 and 1976.'' As recently as 1922, 90
per cent  of the  Adirondacks and  northern New  England had been
completely clear-cut.  Now they are virtually totally reforested.
``Given  the effects  of  vegetation of  soil acidification,''
Krug  noted,  ``there  is  little  doubt  that  this  recovery of
landscape from  earlier disturbances  can result  in increasingly
acid surface soil  horizons and the  thickening and acidification
of forest floors.
``Thus mountainous areas of the northeastern United States are
not pristine environments that are  acted upon only by acid rain.
These landscapes which were disturbed (cut over and burnt) in the
past are  undergoing soil  transformation processes  that produce
the greatest increases in natural soil acidity.''
Krug also  cites controlled experiments  which repeatedly show
that  when highly  acid snow  melt is  leached through  less acid
soil,  the resulting  water  has the  same  acidity as  the soil,
showing that natural surface acidity is the controlling factor in
watersheds, while acid rain effects are at most trivial.
A classic example is Hubbard Brook in New Hampshire, which has
remained  strongly  acidic  even  as  the  rain  acidity  in  New
Hampshire has in fact declined for 25 years.
Dr.  Krug reports  that  ``The highest  percentages  of highly
acidic lakes in North America exist  in relatively low or no acid
deposition areas.   This suggests the  possibility that, contrary
to predictions  of the  acid rain  theory, highly  acidic surface
water can be a natural phenomenon of these regions.''
For example,  12 per cent  of Florida lake  surfaces are acid,
but its rain is only one-sixth  as acid as the Adirondacks, which
have less than 2 per cent acid lake surfaces. (See Table II.)
Krug's best example is southwest Tasmania off Australia, whose
climate and  topography most clearly  resemble Northeast America.
Southwest Tasmania enjoys pristine  nonacidic rainwater, yet over
28 percent of the lakes and  streams there are highly acidic, but
its rainwater is in fact quite alkaline.
As Krug  told us,  ``In statistically  weighing possible
causes of lake acidification, acid  rain does not even show
up as a significant variable, let alone correlative.''
No wonder EPA and environmentalists  have worked hard and with
some success to drum King out of his profession and to ignore his
valuable DOE study.

Liming Could Solve Acid Lakes' Problem

The  astonishing part  of the  Bush acid  rain program  is the
weakness of both its economics and its science.
Even if you accept  the premise that all  of the Northeast and
Canadian acid lakes resulted from acid rain (which they did not),
you could lime all those lakes  back to alkalinity for about $250
an acre by helicopter or $50 an acre by boat.
The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (NAPAP) has
identified only 15,124 acres of acid  lake area (under 2 per cent
of the total) in  the Northeast and Midwest.   You could lime all
of these  lakes every  year for  under $4  million by helicopter,
under $800,000  by boat,  or about  1/10th of  1 per  cent of the
$3-$4 billion cost of the Bush program (Table III).
And,  unlike the  Bush sulphur  dioxide removal  program, this
would actually ensure de-acidification of lakes.
Environmentalists oppose this  solution because it would
undermine  their  bureaucratic and  ideological  agenda and
would  expose   the
  • weak science on which acid rain
  • remediation is based.
In  1987,  the  National Park  Service  refused  the  state of
Massachusetts' offer to lime the lakes  and ponds in the Cape Cod
National Sea Shore, 40 per cent of which are acidic.
The  trouble is  those ponds  and  lakes are  naturally acidic
(like over 90 per cent of all  acidic lakes).  In this case it is
because of the sphagnum moss  that lines their bottoms.  The Park
Service  explicitly   didn't  want  to   disturb  that  ``natural
ecosystem.''

As  Superintendent  Herbert  Ohlsen  wrote  the  Massachusetts
officials in  1987, ``As you  know, all  of the paleolimnological
evidence indicates a 12,000-year  history of predominantly acidic
lake conditions on outer Cape Cod.  We know of no data to support
your  Division's assumption  that  significant impact  (i.e. pond
acidification) is occurring due to current acid rain.''

In short,  cutting SO2  emissions will  have no  effect on the
acidity of Cape Cod lakes which  comprise over half of all acidic
lakes in southern  New England.  Ohlsen  told the Audubon Society
that ``Such acid conditions can  result from natural processes in
the watershed involving local soils and vegetation, and have been
well known for many years.''

Acid Rain Might Impede Any `Global Warming'

Ironically, there  is now  growing evidence  that removing SO2
emissions could actually contribute to global warming.
As  Dr.  Patrick  Michaels,  chairman  of  the  Department  of
Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia details in a
new paper, SO2 emissions ``serve to `brighten' clouds, reflecting
away  increasing   amounts  of  solar   radiation,  and  possibly
compensating for greenhouse warming.''
To  oversimplify  it,  while carbon  dioxide  (CO2)  helps the
atmosphere hold more heat in, SO2 helps reflect it away.
Temperature data suggest  that in areas  downwind of the major
SO2 emission sources, the warming trend has been lessened, due in
part to this  ``cloud brightening'' effect.   As Michaels argues,
``Perhaps this can explain  the cooling of the  U.S. [in the last
100  years]  in  the  face of  the  trace  gas  [CO2  and others]
increases.''

Michaels'  thesis  was supported  in  the June 
1989  issue of Nature magazine by a leading British 
climatologist T.M.L. Wigley, who warned, ``If  we were successful in  halting or reversing the
increase  [sic]  in  SO2  emissions   we  could  as  a  by-product
accelerate the rate of greenhouse-induced warming. ...''

Be that as it may, taking that risk isn't necessary.  For less
than $10 million a year the  unproven effects of acid rain can be
neutralized (limed) out of existence."
...........
.............. 
 
11/16/1990, U.S.  Global Change Research Act of 1990 (George Bush #1)
 
------------------ 



3/6/15, "Causes and consequences of the climate science boom," William Butos and Thomas McQuade 
 
From the paper:



"1. The Government’s Role in Climate Science Funding...[is] embedded 
in scores of agencies and programs scattered throughout the Executive 
Branch of the US government. While such agency activities related to 
climate science have received funding for many years as components of 
their mission statements, the pursuit of an integrated national agenda 
to study climate change and implement policy initiatives took a critical
 step with passage of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. This Act 
established institutional structures operating out of the White House to
 develop and oversee the implementation of a National Global Change 
Research Plan and created the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
 to coordinate the climate change research activities of Executive 
Departments and agencies.[33] As
 of 2014, the coordination of climate change-related activities resides 
largely in the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
which houses several separate offices, including the offices of 
Environment and Energy, Polar Sciences, Ocean Sciences, Clean Energy and
 Materials R&D, Climate Adaptation and Ecosystems, National Climate 
Assessment, and others. The Office of the President also maintains the 
National Science and Technology Council, which oversees the Committee on
 Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability and its Subcommittee
 on Climate Change Research. The Subcommittee is charged with the 
responsibility of planning and coordinating with the interagency USGCRP.
 Also, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy is housed within 
the President’s Domestic Policy Council. While Congress authorizes 
Executive branch budgets, the priorities these departments and agencies 
follow are set by the White House. As expressed in various agency and 
Executive Branch strategic plans, these efforts have been recently 
organized around four components comprising (1) climate change research 
and education, (2) emissions reduction through “clean” energy 
technologies and investments, (3) adaptation to climate change, and (4) 
international climate change leadership.[36]....By any of 
these measures, the scale of climate science R&D has increased 
substantially since 2001. Perhaps, though, the largest funding increases
 have occurred in developing new technologies and tax subsidies. As can 
be seen from Table 1, federal dollars to develop and implement “clean 
energy technologies” have increased from $1.7 billion in 2001 to $5.8 
billion in 2013, while energy tax subsidies have increased from zero in 
2001 and 2002 to $13 billion in 2013, with the largest increases 
happening since 2010. The impact on scientific research of government 
funding is not just a matter of the amounts but also of the 
concentration of research monies that arises from the focus a single 
source can bring to bear on particular kinds of scientific research. 
Government is that single source and has Big Player effects because it 
has access to a deep pool of taxpayer (and, indeed, borrowed and 
created) funds combined with regulatory and enforcement powers which 
necessarily place it on a different footing from other players and 
institutions. Notwithstanding the interplay of rival interests within 
the government and the separation of powers among the different 
branches, there is an important sense in which government’s inherent 
need to act produces a particular set of decisions that fall within a 
relatively narrow corridor of ends to which it can concentrate 
substantial resources.



2. By any standards,
 what we have documented here is a massive funding drive, highlighting 
the patterns of climate science R&D as funded and directed only by 
the Executive Branch and the various agencies that fall within its 
purview.[40]
 To put its magnitude into some context, the $9.3 billion funding 
requested for climate science R&D in 2013 is about one-third of the 
total amount appropriated for all 27 National Institutes of Health in 
the same year,[41]
 yet it is more than enough to sustain a science boom. Its directional 
characteristic, concentrated as it has been on R&D premised on the 
controversial issue of the actual sensitivity of climate to human-caused
 emissions, has gone hand in hand with the IPCC’s expressions of 
increasing confidence in the AGW hypothesis and increasingly shrill 
claims of impending disaster.



3. The recent pattern of federal climate science funding, moving toward
 emphasis on the development of technologies and their subsidization 
through the tax system, suggests that climate change funding has become 
more tightly connected to agencies like the Department of Energy, NASA, 
the Department of Commerce (NOAA), EPA, and cross-cutting projects and 
programs involving multiple agencies under integrating and coordinating 
agencies, like the USGCRP, lodged within the Executive branch. The 
allocations of budgets within these agencies are more directly 
determined and implemented by Administration priorities and policies. We
 note that the traditional role of NSF in supporting basic science based
 on a system of merit awards provided (despite some clear imperfections)
 certain advantages with regard to generating impartial science. In 
contrast, even a casual perusal of current agency documents, such as The
 National Science and Technology Council’s The National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021, shows that those driving this movement make no pretense as to their premises and starting points.[39]



4. To be sure, the very opaqueness of these allocations and their 
actual use only provides for “ball park” estimates. However, we believe 
that the results presented in Table 3 come closer to a useful accounting
 than what previously has been provided. We have combined data from 
Leggett et al. (2013) and the AAAS Reports for Fiscal Years 2012 and 
2013 (the only years for which the AAAS provides detailed budgetary data
 for climate science R&D and climate-related funding). This 
constrains Table 3 to including data only from 2010 through 2013. We 
have adjusted budgetary data and categorized it in light of discussion 
points 1-5 above. Note that the estimated aggregate expenditures for 
climate science and climate-related funding (excluding tax subsidies) 
from 2010-2013 in Table 3 are about twice that of the Leggett findings.



5.5 Funds administered by the Treasury Department in Table 2 are 
credit lines and loans channeled through the World Bank earmarked for 
international organizations to finance clean technologies and 
sustainable practices; consequently such funds would also more 
accurately be considered as climate-related sustainability and 
adaptation....



8. This summary and the detail in Table 1, however, do not capture the 
full scale of federal funding for climate science R&D. Two 
complications must be considered to capture a more accurate estimate. 
First, the entries in the first row of Table 1 for climate science only 
refer to monies administered by the Executive branch via the office of 
the USGCRP and does not include all climate-related R&D in the 
federal budget. For example, the entry in Table 1 for the USGCRP in 2011
 is just under $2.5 billion; yet the actual budget expenditures for 
climate science-related R&D as calculated by the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) total about $16.1 
billion.[38]
 In addition, since USGCRP funding is comprised of monies contributed 
from the authorized budgets of the 13 participating departments and 
agencies, a more accurate estimate of climate-related R&D requires 
deducting USGCRP funding from the aggregated budgets of those 13, most 
of which are included in Table 2.



9. Leggett et al. (2013) of the Congressional Research Service provides
 a recent account of climate change funding based on data provided by 
the White House Office of Management and Budget (see Table 1, below). 
Total expenditures for federal funded climate change programs from 
2001-2013 were $110.9 billion in current dollars and $120.2 billion in 
2012 dollars. “Total budgetary impact” includes various tax provisions 
and subsidies related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (which are 
treated as “tax expenditures”) and shows total climate change 
expenditures from 2001-2013 to be $145.3 billion in current dollars and 
$155.4 billion in 2012 dollars.[37]



10. The USGCRP operates as a confederacy of the research components of 
thirteen participating government agencies, each of which independently 
designates funds in accordance with the objectives of the USGCRP; these 
monies comprise the program budget of the USGCRP to fund agency 
cross-cutting climate science R&D.[34]
 The departments and agencies whose activities comprise the bulk of such
 funding include independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Environmental 
Protection Agency, US Agency for International Development, the 
quasi-official Smithsonian Institute, and Executive Departments that 
include Agriculture, Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology), Energy,
 Interior (the US Geological Survey and conservation initiatives), 
State, and Treasury.[35]



11. The past 15 years have seen a sustained program of funding, largely from government or quasi-government entities.[31]
 The funding efforts are spread across a bewildering array of sources 
and buried in a labyrinth of programs, agency initiatives, interagency 
activities, and Presidential Offices, but what they seem to have in 
common is an adherence to the assumption that human activity is 
primarily responsible for the warming observed in the latter part of the
 20th century. Funding appears to be driving the science 
rather than the other way around. And the extent of this funding appears
 not to have been heretofore fully documented.[32]"...

. 

=========================



11/16/1990, U.S.  Global Change Research Act of 1990 

 
 
......................
............... 

Comment: Like CO2, it was a marriage of politics and media, backed by weak science, and was to be cured in part by 
"emissions trading." 'Acid rain' was pushed 
by George Bush (the first) who claimed he was the
"Environment President."
 
 
 
 
 
....................... 


No comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of a World War II Air Force pilot and outdoorsman who settled in New Jersey.