Norm Sauer: If you can control carbon, you control life |

Norm Sauer: If you can control carbon, you control life

Norm Sauer

I read Paul S. Berger’s article in Sept. 14’s Ideas & Opinions section that climate change is a real threat and Judy Weiss’s letter of Sept. 12 arguing for a national carbon tax.

Berger’s article argued the reality of man-made global warming (MMGW) can be found on a NASA website. Well, I went where he directed, and the first piece of “science” posted by NASA is the “hockey stick.”

For those who don’t know the story, geoscientist Michael Mann wrote an article showing a graph shaped like a hockey stick to prove 1998 was the hottest year is the last 1,000. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied heavily on Mann’s hockey stick in its 2001 report arguing greenhouse gases including CO2 were the culprit of global warming.

By 2003, two Canadians named Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick assiduously started researching Mann’s facts and computer hypotheticals.

CO2 is clean, makes for growth… If government can control carbon, it can capture our wealth and control our lives.

By ignoring the medieval warm period when temperatures exceeded what we have today at a time when today’s industrialization did not exist, and finding Mann skewed computer codes and used improper data, McIntyre and McKitrick proved Mann’s argument for CO2-caused global warming was “a carefully worked artificial creation.”

McIntyre and McKitrick’s work led to a U.S. Senate investigation that debunked Mann’s hockey stick theory that 1998 was the hottest year in the last 1,000. The Senate investigation also found the study of the social networking of the paleoclimatology world showed how close it was and how often a small group of scientists both co-wrote and peer reviewed papers for each other. In addition, no statisticians were ever involved in their research work or peer review articles.

Public doubt about MMGW increased in 2009 and 2011 when hacked emails of scientists at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University disclosed their scientists concealed and/or destroyed raw data and computer codes, manipulated facts, did research work without collaborating with professional statisticians, and were highly politically motivated working for the IPCC.

With nothing to gain and power to lose if MMGW were debunked, government investigations in Britain found no scientific malpractice.

Moving on to Ms. Weiss’ argument for a national carbon tax, I can’t help but ask, “Why is the solution to her problem in the United States the transfer of wealth to the government?”

We have carbon taxes already in the European Union and California called “cap and trade.” Cap and trade is designed to make energy, food, and the gas we use more expensive. As President Obama told us when he was a senator: “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Environmentally, a national cap and trade tax scheme in America would solve nothing. Lisa Jackson, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the United States acting alone on global warming would have no impact whatsoever on global carbon levels.

More importantly, recent findings by the Stockholm Environment Institute, which investigated carbon credits used to offset greenhouse gas emissions under a UN scheme in the European Union, show that a great deal of emissions have not been reduced by credit swaps. But even worse, credit swaps are increasing emissions in 80 percent of 60 industries studied.

For example, plants in Russia increased waste gas generation to unprecedented levels once they could generate credits from producing more waste gas. More credits meant more money for Russian plants from the sale of credits to European businesses.

So now we know why countries like China, India, and others might sign a treaty at the Paris climate summit this winter to shake down American power companies and other businesses without having to do anything real to reduce their own emissions.

They can sell us credit swaps and effectuate a transfer of wealth from US businesses. Meanwhile, as a result of this scam, all consumers in the U.S. will find their power bills rising, along with virtually all other expenses, since most of them require energy. And we in California are living this already under the unelected, unaccountable California Air Resources Board (CARB).

As of today, what conclusions have can one reach?

First, what I learned in high school remains unchanged: CO2 is clean, makes for growth, and makes it green.

Second, cap and trade is a government scam based on scam climatology. If government can control carbon, it can capture our wealth and control our lives.

Norm Sauer, who lives in Nevada City, is a member of The Union Editorial Board. His opinion is his own and does not reflect the viewpoint of The Union or its editorial board. Write to him at

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.