backtop

Print 152 comment(s) - last by elgueroloco.. on Jul 3 at 8:56 AM

New EPA administrator Lisa Jackson claimed she would deliver "transparency" to the agency. EPA officials now claim that Jackson's administration is silencing reports that oppose the regulation of carbon dioxide or suggest global warming theory is unproven.  (Source: WaterWay News)
Agency denies reports of censorship, veteran officials state otherwise

Details of the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to censor and suppress several senior researchers over reports voicing skepticism on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory are drawing attention.

Alan Carlin authored a 98-page report urging caution before enacting potential carbon regulation.  His report warned against making policy "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."  The report stated, "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide).  There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Recently released emails from Al McGartland, an EPA administrator, to Carlin reveal a startling tale of bias and suppression.  In the email McGartland writes, "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

Carlin's report was rejected and hushed away.  Carlin, though, doesn't blame McGartland.  In an interview he states, "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else.  That was obviously coming from higher levels."

Other released emails reveal that Carlin was forbade to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group on climate issues.  Carlin, who's dedicated 38 years of his life to the EPA, adds, "I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on.  And it was not to work on climate change."

He was shuffled to work on a grants database, moved out of active research.  Carlin has authored numerous climate papers and holds a Ph.D in economics from MIT along with an undergraduate physics degree from CalTech.

The EPA denies the censorship.  It states, "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."

During the Bush administration, environmental advocates and certain EPA individuals complained that pro-AGW reports were being censored.  Lisa Jackson, the new Obama-appointed EPA administrator had promised to turn over a new leaf.  She had proclaimed, "I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Committed to openness
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 1:39:06 PM , Rating: 5
Like how open the Democrats were about the 300 pages of amendments added to the tax and trade bill the night before the bill was voted on?

I say let the investigation happen. If they're so open, what do they have to hide?




RE: Committed to openness
By Rhaido on 6/30/2009 1:42:25 PM , Rating: 5
Minor correction. It was not the night before, it was 3am the same day.


RE: Committed to openness
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 1:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well yeah, I consider that the night before. Semantics.


RE: Committed to openness
By corduroygt on 6/30/2009 5:32:30 PM , Rating: 3
If Cap&Trade passes, I am seriously considering moving to Dubai. No income taxes, no bullshit global warming legislation despite being in the desert. Wonder how hard is it to get citizenship there.


RE: Committed to openness
By glitchc on 6/30/2009 5:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Can't own land there, boss. Can't really own anything for that matter, except maybe a car.


RE: Committed to openness
By stilltrying on 6/30/2009 5:41:57 PM , Rating: 4
You think you own your land? Stop paying taxes and we will see who owns your land and house. America and freedom, hogwash it has more communist manifesto planks than anyone dares to think about.


RE: Committed to openness
By petrosy on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Committed to openness
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 7/1/2009 1:56:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
crap gas guzzeling cars that nobody wants to drive.


Last time I checked since gas prices have dropped Gas guzzeling trucks are still selling.

quote:
We are polluting the air we breath which in turn will increase our cancer risk...


Really? So where did you get your Medical Degree from? If what you say is true, than a lot of people in cancer research will be out of a job. All hale you.


RE: Committed to openness
By MrPoletski on 7/1/2009 9:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last time I checked since gas prices have dropped Gas guzzeling trucks are still selling.


So is snake oil.

You are pretty much the only country in the world interested in stupidly large motor vehicles for everyday use.

Anyway, you should be asking yourself what it was that Ford did and GM didn't that means Ford STILL hasn't had a bailout and GM is dead.

I drive a Ford Focus and I'm in the UK. Even if I wanted one, I'd have a hard time finding a car for sale made by GM (or a given front company) over here.


RE: Committed to openness
By Keeir on 7/1/2009 3:37:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You are pretty much the only country in the world interested in stupidly large motor vehicles for everyday use.


No... interest in "large" autos is usually inversely proportional to fuel price and proportional to overall wealth.

With Europes 100% + Fuel taxes, clearly there is much more difficult case to be made for larger autos. But its really important to see that this is an artifical situation created by essentially sin taxes on fuel. If Europe had similar fuel prices to NA, Europeans would want to drive larger/less fuel efficient cars as well. Essentially thats why the Sin Fuel Tax exists at all... to ensure Europeans don't want to drive large cars.

quote:
I drive a Ford Focus and I'm in the UK. Even if I wanted one, I'd have a hard time finding a car for sale made by GM (or a given front company) over here.


Really? GM claims to have 15% of the market in Britian.
http://www.gm.com/europe/gm-europe/uk/

Ford does a little bit better at around 16% of the market in Britian

http://media.ford.com/news/fordgrowsukshareinchall...

Maybe things have changed since 2008, guess its fair to get rid of Hummer and Saab, but those are fairly small in UK right?

Its also good to note that the European Ford Focus is singificantly different than a NA Focus.


RE: Committed to openness
By MrPoletski on 7/2/2009 3:49:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
No... interest in "large" autos is usually inversely proportional to fuel price and proportional to overall wealth.


Ah I thought there might be an equation governing it -.-

How often do you leave your country?

quote:
Really? GM claims to have 15% of the market in Britian.


I was not aware they owned vauxhall, thought they were German. Vauxhall was probably their most profitable area.

quote:
If Europe had similar fuel prices to NA, Europeans would want to drive larger/less fuel efficient cars as well.


Have you driven down some of our roads? they are not all so conducive to being filled with mega-cars, unless you only want to use one lane.

quote:
Its also good to note that the European Ford Focus is singificantly different than a NA Focus.


It is?


RE: Committed to openness
By Keeir on 7/2/2009 1:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you driven down some of our roads? they are not all so conducive to being filled with mega-cars, unless you only want to use one lane.


Yeah, I have. And I agree that this would not be great. However, people's desire for comfort usually change these things.

I have been to London several times over the past few decades. Familiar with the term "Chelsea Tractor"? Chelsea is an upscale neighborhood in London right? The term (I believe, not being an expert on all things British) developed because large numbers of rich "soccer moms" or fools in Chelsea bought overly large SUVs to drive around London. I also happened to notice the copious amounts of fuel wasting performance cars in Britian each time I have traveled there. Not an unreasonable number, but certainly more than would be expected of a country that takes such a high and mighty attitude about Fuel consumption standards.

The truth seems to be that when someone in Europe and Britian can afford the higher fuel costs, they spring for larger or more fuel wasting cars. Since this makes basic sense (people will trade money for utility at the levels they value the money versus the utility), is it any wonder that when the penatly is significantly less, more people choose this option?

As to the differences between European Focus and NA Focus... The NA Focus is most basic car in the United States and sells on -price- alone. They have stripped the styling, the handling, the performance (through transmission timing or something), the interior... its really sad. I might consider a European Focus (I personally drive this size car anyway), but the NA Focus wouldn't even get a test drive. I have driven later than 2006 model years for both.

quote:
How often do you leave your country?


How often do you drive in the US? Drive a typical persons commute? Drive a vacation through Oregon and California Coast? Make a Road Trip to Disney Land with 3 children? Drive between two Semis (Huge trucks that don't even exist in most of Europe) for miles?

There are very good reasons why US people prefer cars with Wheelbases above 105 in and HP 150+ with around 115 in and 250 HP being the sweet spots. 3 dollar a gallon fuel combined with the current road conditions.


RE: Committed to openness
By MrPoletski on 7/3/2009 4:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have been to London several times over the past few decades. Familiar with the term "Chelsea Tractor"? Chelsea is an upscale neighborhood in London right? The term (I believe, not being an expert on all things British) developed because large numbers of rich "soccer moms" or fools in Chelsea bought overly large SUVs to drive around London.


silly women in their oversized ford galaxy type cars driving slowly dropping their single kid off at school are a god damned hazard.

quote:
I also happened to notice the copious amounts of fuel wasting performance cars in Britian each time I have traveled there. Not an unreasonable number, but certainly more than would be expected of a country that takes such a high and mighty attitude about Fuel consumption standards.


I wouldn't call it 'such a high and mighty' attitude. Remember all your mpg figures also look worse than ours because weuse metric gallons (5 litres) and you use imperial (3. something)

quote:
The truth seems to be that when someone in Europe and Britian can afford the higher fuel costs, they spring for larger or more fuel wasting cars.


It's the car cost that's the main thing. A car can be expensive or cheap to run independantly of its size or cost.

quote:
Since this makes basic sense (people will trade money for utility at the levels they value the money versus the utility), is it any wonder that when the penatly is significantly less, more people choose this option?


You don't have to be a gas guzzler to be a damn nice ride.

quote:
As to the differences between European Focus and NA Focus... The NA Focus is most basic car in the United States and sells on -price- alone. They have stripped the styling, the handling, the performance (through transmission timing or something), the interior... its really sad.


Ah, coz the only difference I could see on google was available engine sizes. All larger over there but no diesel.

quote:
I might consider a European Focus (I personally drive this size car anyway), but the NA Focus wouldn't even get a test drive. I have driven later than 2006 model years for both.


Mines '04 and the turbodisel is awesome fun.

quote:
How often do you drive in the US? Drive a typical persons commute? Drive a vacation through Oregon and California Coast? Make a Road Trip to Disney Land with 3 children? Drive between two Semis (Huge trucks that don't even exist in most of Europe) for miles?


Not very often but I was in Houston a couple of years ago working out a hotel room for a couple of months driving into town every day.

quote:
There are very good reasons why US people prefer cars with Wheelbases above 105 in and HP 150+ with around 115 in and 250 HP being the sweet spots. 3 dollar a gallon fuel combined with the current road conditions.


That and your huge roads with virtually zero bends.


RE: Committed to openness
By lennylim on 6/30/2009 7:23:52 PM , Rating: 4
The only "easy" way to become a citizen of Dubai is to marry a citizen, and convert to Islam. Even then I don't think it is a slam dunk.


RE: Committed to openness
By kondor999 on 6/30/2009 8:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
I dated an Iranian (she preferred Persian) girl last year. She was smoking hot and, um, rather adventurous.

Now I realize that Persians aren't Arabs, but maybe there's hope for my dream of being a happily married psychiatrist in Dubai - driving an F430 of course!

Um, sorry. A little OT I guess ;-)


RE: Committed to openness
By EricMartello on 7/1/2009 1:10:04 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I dated an Iranian (she preferred Persian) girl last year. She was smoking hot and, um, rather adventurous.


Adventurous you say? She showed you her face didn't she?


RE: Committed to openness
By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 1:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
Not in public!

What kind of girl do you think she is?


RE: Committed to openness
By MrPoletski on 7/1/2009 9:57:11 AM , Rating: 2
Last muslim girl I was dating liked face painting. She was from Kazakhstan. The majority of people over here (the west) have a pretty ignorant view of what those people out there are actually like.

It wasn't paint I used, if you get the picture.

She was damn noisy too.


RE: Committed to openness
By corduroygt on 7/1/2009 4:09:05 AM , Rating: 3
I wiki'd Dubai and found out that unfortunately it's succumbed to the cancer of Islam. So my current plan is to open a company and have all my income there but live in the US.


RE: Committed to openness
By MrPoletski on 7/1/2009 9:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only "easy" way to become a citizen of Dubai is to marry a citizen, and convert to Islam. Even then I don't think it is a slam dunk.


You don't need to be a citizen to live there permenantly.

You need a residence visa for that. Why on earth would you want to become a citizen there? it'd be illegal for you to go in bars!


RE: Committed to openness
By mindless1 on 6/30/2009 7:14:38 PM , Rating: 1
That's not a correction at all, what are you smoking? 3AM IS THE NIGHT BEFORE. DUH?


RE: Committed to openness
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Committed to openness
By invidious on 6/30/2009 2:07:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
New EPA administrator Lisa Jackson claimed she would deliver "transparency" to the agency.


FIT is essentially implying the current administration does not take transparency seriously and is lying to our face when they make these kinds of claims.

I am not suprised that they aren't transparent, no administration can afford to be. I am not even that suprised that thye are lying to us about being transparent.

What does suprise me is that some people actually accept that they are being transparent, dispite the evidence that they are not. And no I am not refering to any posts here, just a general observation.


RE: Committed to openness
By GaryJohnson on 6/30/2009 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 5
Never trust a politician. It's just one of those undeniable truths of the universe.


RE: Committed to openness
By Grabo on 6/30/2009 4:05:18 PM , Rating: 1
Which is why you couldn't pay me enough to become one.

While total power corrupts totally, being the voice of the people..eh, leaves you slightly out-of-touch with the same people?

While nothing governmental might ever be totally transparent, at least Asher is.


RE: Committed to openness
By marvdmartian on 6/30/2009 4:27:43 PM , Rating: 5
Remember, the only time they're lying to you is when their mouth is open! ;)

Tough to push your agenda when the facts don't agree with you, eh?


RE: Committed to openness
By mindless1 on 6/30/2009 7:16:08 PM , Rating: 5
Is it tough? Unfortunately they've managed to so far without anyone stopping them.


RE: Committed to openness
By kfonda on 6/30/2009 8:58:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Remember, the only time they're lying to you is when their mouth is open! ;)


Not any more, now they can send you a text message from their blackberry. :-)


RE: Committed to openness
By Flunk on 6/30/2009 3:17:15 PM , Rating: 1
Still doesn't make sense. Why turn this into a partisan argument for no reason. It's not like Republicans were transparent either. Arguing that one party is as bad as the other makes no logical sense.

Truthfully there is little difference between the two parties, makes me wonder if there is a point in voting at all.


RE: Committed to openness
By mdogs444 on 6/30/2009 3:26:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why turn this into a partisan argument for no reason.

Because the article itself says that the Obama Administration claims that the Bush and the Republicans were not transparent, and that he is going to be fully transparent. Obviously he is just as bad, if not worse, than the Bush Administration.


RE: Committed to openness
By Bonesdad on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Committed to openness
By foolsgambit11 on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Committed to openness
By Lakku on 6/30/2009 5:50:13 PM , Rating: 3
What is the climate science consensus? And what if said consensus is, I don't know, telling politicians what they want to hear, because Al Gore said it's the new 'it' thing, so they can just get more money? My point being, there is no consensus, that's why it's a hot button issue. How do we really know what's going on with so little time of observation on what is sometimes THOUSANDS of years in the making? Don't jump the gun, and as such, are we even sure we know how to interpret climate, ozone, and other data? What if the science and math associated with these so called climate changes is flawed?


RE: Committed to openness
By Hvordan on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Committed to openness
By ImJustSaying on 6/30/2009 9:48:38 PM , Rating: 1
You know what else is a hot-button issue in politics? Evolution. Remember the quote: "The jury is still out on evolution." ? ? ? The jury is still out for this guy who I quoted (George W. Bush) because he, and others that share his belief either in earnest or for manipulative reasons, use a 1% doctrine of analyzing anything that doesn't fit within their ideological perspective. 'Oh, well you see, evolution doesn't make sense here (1%), so I'm going to just write it off completely.' 'Oh, well, there is a 1% chance that Iraq has nukes, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so it's better to preempt that mushroom cloud-tipped smoking gun, and invade/occupy this country. Oh there weren't nukes? Well just imagine if we didn't invade, and that 1% chance became reality?! Thank me later...'

It's silly to ignore mountains of evidence supporting a theory, because it's only 99% accurate. I'm exaggerating here, (I know that climate change theory and its link to human activity is not 99% evident), but I'm using this to make a point. It's ridiculous to say, "what if?" and then conclude that the evidence the majority of the scientific community has been putting together, and corroborating for decades (even before 'green' and 'climate change' were cliche marketing terms), is false.


RE: Committed to openness
By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 1:29:02 AM , Rating: 5
The problem with your analogy is that the AGW people are the religious fanatics who cling to their belief that the global climate is being controlled by human activities.

Nothing about AGW passes the basic scientific sniff test.

Global Warming caused by CO2? You've got to be kidding. Carbon Dioxide isn't even a very good green house gas. The only warming that has been conclusively measured is ground temperatures - atmospheric measurements have to be fudged to fit the models.

The models themselves are highly questionable because they do not accurately predict PAST events, how can they be relied upon to predict future events. (The little ice age, the cooling trend of the 1970's, the cooling trend in the current decade, etc.)

Not to mention the outright hypocritical stance that AGW "Environmentalists" take against Nuclear power. The only viable alternative to Carbon based fuels clearly doesn't fit their agenda, and thus they are against it.

In addition the flawed assumption that a minor change in Carbon Dioxide levels can effect a major change in Global Climate is based entirely on the flawed assumption of a "run-away greenhouse effect." This would require that the global climate had somehow evolved into an unstable equilibrium state over the past 3 Billion years. Any scientist will acknowledge that unstable equilibriums are exceedingly rare in nature, not to mention laughably implausible in a system as complex as a global ecosystem.

All the scientific evidence I've seen in favor of Global Warming are almost exclusively based on localized case studies of a particular phenomenon. The conclusions are questionable when the local trend is extrapolated to a global scale (using only local evidence for support) and then blamed on Carbon Emissions conveniently discounting every other variable (of which there are plenty.)

I personally believe in Global Warming, but only to the extent that it is local warming (not global,) and is not caused by the "greenhouse effect." Only the "Heat Island" effect has strong supporting evidence and can reliably predict current and future temperatures, both at ground level and in the upper atmosphere. Is this man made warming? Yes it is, but it will not be helped by taxing the snot out of Carbon Emissions.

I apologize for the mini-novel, but it is clear to me that the science currently supports the skeptics, not the the Church of Al Gore. Science is by definition skepticism. A skeptic is “One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.” If that is not what a scientist is, I don't know what is.

Science has never been about consensus. It is about reproducibility and prediction, modeling and constant testing. Science is the search for knowledge and therefore a real scientist does not omit information. The EPA cannot possibly claim scientific grounds for omitting conflicting information.


RE: Committed to openness
By foolsgambit11 on 7/1/2009 4:05:51 AM , Rating: 1
Beware! Wall Of Text Response!

Science doesn't always agree with common sense. You know what else doesn't pass a basic "scientific" sniff test? Quantum physics. God does not play dice with the universe. Or relativity, either. You mean to tell me no matter how fast I'm going, light will still be going 186,000 miles per hour? Come on!

Now to the nitty-gritty:

Ground temperatures and sea temperatures are measured. Lucky for those modeling global temperatures, they're much greater heat sinks than the atmosphere, so they hold the vast majority of the retained energy in a greenhouse scenario. And CO2 doesn't have to be a 'good' greenhouse gas if it is abundant enough. Please use numbers to support your claims, like climate scientists do.

The models may or may not explain previous warming and cooling epochs. This can be due to many variables. We don't have nearly as reliable or as complete a data set for past times as we do for the last 40 years. The causes of previous changes may have been other forcing components, which haven't been observed in our current warming period. As an analogy, this would be like discounting special relativity because it didn't cover gravity. Or discounting Newtonian physics because it doesn't work at relativistic speeds. The models may have to be expanded to cover additional situations, but that doesn't make them invalid for the specific circumstances which they were designed to accurately model.

Activists' stance with regard to nuclear power has nothing to do with the evaluation of a scientific theory based of the evidence and analysis presented.

The idea that the ecosystem of the Earth has maintained a climate suitable for life when even a doubling of CO2 levels can cause dramatic changes may be tough to believe. Especially when we know that levels have been that high in the past. However, the issue isn't whether Earth will continue to support life, it is how the climate will affect the quality of life for humans. If the Earth does heat up by several degrees, and we get glacial melts and rising sea levels, life will go on. I don't doubt that such things have happened in the past. And life survives such dramatic changes well. But all life, and we humans in particular, would suffer massive casualties and a reduced quality of life because of it.

While some reports cover local incidences, I've found this is at least as common among AGW skeptics as among proponents - look back at some of Michael Asher's news stories to see many examples of this issue. That aside, there have been many large-scale studies of global climate, and small-scale studies have their place when their results can be integrated into large-scale studies. As for 'discounting' all the other variables, read the IPCC report, a snippet of which, after careful evaluation of the likelihood of other forcings being at work, states: "The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system as well as the magnitude and pattern of warming within and across the different components supports the conclusion that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely (<5%) to be the result of internal processes."

Finally, to be clear, I have no beef with genuine skeptics among climate scientists who refute claims of global warming using the scientific method. Such refutations are vital to the progress of science, and help to increase man's knowledge of the world around him. Whether or not science is about consensus, politics is. And in the area where science and politics collide, it is only appropriate that politicians should ask for scientists to come to a consensus about the likelihood of certain predictions. That's where reports like the IPCC's come in.

Incidentally, anthropogenic global warming has been the dominant theory, even when our data were less conclusive, for more than 20 years. Well before Al Gore's crusade. Al Gore just made the layman's case for it (however inaccurately), and pushed for government action. The scientific consensus isn't his doing, though; he only helped create a layman's consensus that something must be done about it.


RE: Committed to openness
By joshuaheard on 7/1/2009 10:44:01 AM , Rating: 5
The IPCC is not a scientific body. It is made up of government representatives, ie bureaucrats.

CO2 is only a small part of greenhouse gases (water vapor being the vast majority). Man's contribution of CO2 is less than 3%. Do we really need to fundamentally alter our energy systems at a huge cost to society based on this?

Also, the earth has warmed and cooled many times over its history. What are the feedback mechanisms that cause the earth to cool after a warming period, and why won't those feedback mechanisms engage now?


RE: Committed to openness
By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 5
A couple of issues:
quote:
The models may have to be expanded to cover additional situations, but that doesn't make them invalid for the specific circumstances which they were designed to accurately model.

Any model that cannot be validated against known test cases should not be assumed to be accurate.

quote:
Activists' stance with regard to nuclear power has nothing to do with the evaluation of a scientific theory based of the evidence and analysis presented.

When activists are the ones pushing for MAJOR policy change motive is everything. You can't discount nuclear as a potential solution to the problem just because it doesn't support an anti-industrial agenda.

quote:
But all life, and we humans in particular, would suffer massive casualties and a reduced quality of life because of it.

You are assuming that there won't be human casualties by diverting resources that otherwise could be used to fight famine, war and disease. If we spent 1% of what is being proposed to fight AGW on fighting malaria far more lives would be saved. Unlike fighting AGW this would be a measurable improvement in quality of life for millions of people.

quote:
...the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely (<5%) to be the result of internal processes.

This in no way proves that the warming is caused by Carbon Dioxide either. It is possible to have man-made warming without it being caused by carbon emissions.


RE: Committed to openness
By Eris23007 on 7/1/2009 3:39:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Science doesn't always agree with common sense. You know what else doesn't pass a basic "scientific" sniff test? Quantum physics. God does not play dice with the universe. Or relativity, either. You mean to tell me no matter how fast I'm going, light will still be going 186,000 miles per hour? Come on!


There's a reason why relativity and quantum physics are considered theories - they have not yet been conclusively proven. However, substantial experiments have been conducted.

A perfect example is Gravity Probe B: http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/fact_sheet/GP...

Almost 100 years after the general theory of relativity was proposed, scientists are conducting a rigorously defined experiment to verify it and change it from a theory to a law. Why? Because the scientific method places the burden of evidence upon those attempting to prove the theory.

Personally, I will remain skeptical about the validity of the models being used until they can break the standard 95% confidence interval. Right now they are nowhere near doing so. Remember that you are dealing with highly nonlinear systems that behave in ways beyond our present ability to express in mathematical terms. To clearly state my point:

Dominant or not, AGW is a theory that has not yet been convincingly proven. Every attempt to do so via statistical models has failed to come anywhere close to the generally accepted 95% confidence interval that constitutes a reliable prediction model. "Consensus" appears to be an attempt to avoid this "inconvenient truth" (with all due respect to Mr. Gore). Until AGW can be proven, massive society-changing policy actions are probably unwise.

Compounding my skepticism about the models that are in use to support climate policy-making is the fact that cost-benefit analyses consistently show a low cost-benefit ratio for climate-change expenditures in improving the lot of humans, writ large, in comparison to the ways in which that money is presently being spent. Remember that to fund this will require some form of taxation (in this case essentially a user-fee system) that must by definition impede economic activity.

Agreed that the nuclear issue is separate and, frankly, we should be building nuc power plants like crazy for reasons having nothing to do with climate! In that case, reduced CO2 emissions can be viewed as a fringe benefit to those who consider CO2 a significant issue. Neither solar nor wind can provide more than about 5-10% of our electricity capacity at any time in the foreseeable future simply due to the energy storage issue.


RE: Committed to openness
By Keeir on 6/30/2009 6:47:57 PM , Rating: 4
Wait... do you have a different source besides this article or the CBS news article linked to in this article?

I ask because

I have reviewed the paper in question
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004...

The executive comments indicate the paper's main concern is the EPA may be at legally at fault for acting on science data that is 3 years out of date. There exist a list of specific science points which of naturally disagree with the 2006 IPCC report since agreeing "climate concensus" points would not advance the main point of the paper. The main conclusion is that the EPA should form its own review of the science data rather than relying on outside sources so EPA can be assured to be acting on the most recent data and thus lower risk. Since the main thrust of the article falls clearly within Carlin's experience (Enivormental Policy), I am not sure why this was squished, besides the desire to act quickly on enviromental C02 controls.


RE: Committed to openness
By Yojimbo on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Committed to openness
By Mr772 on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Committed to openness
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 2:18:22 PM , Rating: 4
Your view of what is irrelevant is pretty frightening.


RE: Committed to openness
By Flunk on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Committed to openness
By mdogs444 on 6/30/2009 3:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the science (aka Junk Science), courtesy of Comrade Obama and ManBearPig, is trying to prove the need for trade bills to be passed. Unfortunately, it looks as if we'll get trade bills to damage our economy and personal wallets...so we can all feel good, although accomplishing nothing because its all a farce.


RE: Committed to openness
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 3:44:24 PM , Rating: 5
The cap and trade bill has nothing to do with trade. Have you even f*cking looked at it? But then Democrat representatives didn't even read it so why should you?

And it is relevant to global warming "science" because it's being pushed in response to said "science".


RE: Committed to openness
By wookie1 on 7/1/2009 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
It has much to do with trade. There are provisions that would impose tariffs against China and India if they don't enact similar restrictions on their own emissions (which they adamantly say they will not do). So it's a bit like Smoot-Hawley.


RE: Committed to openness
By rninneman on 6/30/2009 3:53:39 PM , Rating: 5
This response is the model of why voters have chosen the mental midgets we have running the country today.


RE: Committed to openness
By GaryJohnson on 6/30/2009 4:41:27 PM , Rating: 5
None of us are as dumb as all of us. Maybe our representives should all be chosen randomly... like jury duty.


RE: Committed to openness
By austinag on 6/30/2009 6:18:34 PM , Rating: 5
I think your on to something there...

While we're at it, how about a voting license? Like a Driver's License that you have to go in and take a test every once in awhile to prove you don't think Martin Sheen is the President, or that you don't think area 51 is one of the three branches of our government.


RE: Committed to openness
By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 1:49:17 AM , Rating: 1
Be careful there - the Civil Rights Act of 1965 greatly limited the use of literacy tests for the impact that they had on disenfranchising minorities.

Paranoid schizophrenics could plausibly claim protected minority status and claim that they were unjustly disenfranchised by such a law. And then who would vote for Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and Ross Perot?


RE: Committed to openness
By corduroygt on 7/1/2009 4:14:43 AM , Rating: 5
Why are we holding back Americans because some minorities dont tend to do well? Why can't the said minorities actually work at something and do it well instead of bringing everyone back to their own level?
As far as the voting license is concerned, I fully support it, along with a procreation license.


RE: Committed to openness
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 8:56:15 AM , Rating: 2
I would be extremely happy if people had to take a literacy test and be able to answer a few basic questions about how our government works before they're allowed to vote.


RE: Committed to openness
By JediJeb on 6/30/2009 6:36:35 PM , Rating: 3
Honestly I have though of that for years. Make a draft to congress, you have to server your two years and your employer has to hold your job for you when you get back. You get paid your current salary plus 20% for service, and your employer gets paid your salary for the lost production and/or hiring of a two year temp.

Make Civics a required class once again in high school like it used to be, and you have to pass a test on it to graduate so that if you are drafted you at least know the basics of government and the constitution. Laws would be written in plain language that anyone could understand. You can only serve once, so no building up of seniority.

Expert panels could be summoned for technical advice on specific topics, done in a similar mannor but based on credentials and experience.

Or if we still want to do it by election, limit it to one term for every elected position and pay is set at whatever the average pay of the American workforce is, while keeping the same rule above for protecting your job if you choose to run for office.

Concerning the teaching of government in highschool, it is really sad that the old "School House Rock" cartoons taught more about government in the " I'm Just a Bill" one than what is taught in schools today. But then it probably isn't taught these days because politicians don't want the average citizen to know what their rights are and what the governments limitations are supposed to be.


RE: Committed to openness
By ImJustSaying on 6/30/2009 10:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is how the ancient Athenians did it. Each citizen had a turn in being a part of the legislative body. Except they had a direct democracy (how'd that work out for ya?), and we have a representative democracy (how's that working out for ya?). I like what you have to say though; it's simplistic, and usually the easiest answer is the most likely answer.


RE: Committed to openness
By GaryJohnson on 7/1/2009 9:31:15 AM , Rating: 1
I'm in favor of a direct democracy. It works for American Idol, it could work for American Legislation too.


RE: Committed to openness
By rninneman on 6/30/2009 3:55:19 PM , Rating: 4
The cap and trade bill FIT was referring to was supposedly justified in part by EPA findings. The article is shedding light on developments that undermine the reasons for the cap and trade bill.


RE: Committed to openness
By knutjb on 6/30/2009 4:16:50 PM , Rating: 5
All you have to do is connect the dots.

Without the EPA's artificially skewed report Henry Waxman couldn't justify his legislation. Now follow the money, Al Gore will be in line to make BILLIONS from this as will Nancy Pelosi and other Dems in power to make this happen will be in line to make MILLIONS. They have money invested in companies or funds set up for this kind of legislation. Yes, both parties have been guilty of helping their bank accounts at our expense in the past, empty argument. You know two wrongs...

NO ONE WAS ALLOWED TO READ THE WHOLE OF THE LEGISLATION BEFORE VOTING. Sound familiar? The Recovery Act was released in a NON-SEARCHABLE PDF to prevent quick searches. Additionally Nancy Pelosi tried to lock away this from public view, why? If it smells fishy... Yes, Pelosi's predecessor Hastert was nearly as bad as she is, though he didn't have quite as much power.

In the end we will be forced to have a government inspector go though our homes to certify they have all energy star appliances, including water heaters and furnaces BEFORE you can sell your house. Yes that is one of the many big brother requirements. They are blatantly defying the constitution. Bush's Patriot Act requires re-authorization from Congress every 4 years, if not acted on it expires. That is not the case here. They are trying to force the market to invent and produce products that are NOT capable of filling the gap in energy production mandated in the time frame in this legislation. If this makes it through the Senate you will see ALL energy costs sky rocket. Doesn't matter where your power comes from, the end consumer ALWAYS pays for taxes on industry when they buy the end product or service.

All that from a misleading EPA report.


RE: Committed to openness
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 9:00:01 AM , Rating: 3
It's hope and change dude.


RE: Committed to openness
By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 5:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
Who need all this "openness" you speak of? All this nonsense about AGW being unproved sound like doubleplusungood oldthink to me. If the Party say mans are warming the world, then it is true. You speak like you unbellyfeel Insoc. You need to upgood your doublethink, comrade, or thinkpol will get you.


RE: Committed to openness
By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 5:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
Ingsoc* Grrrr. Caught the error just as I had clicked the post button.


RE: Committed to openness
By armulyman on 7/2/2009 12:53:50 AM , Rating: 2
No let them lie to us! Global warming is good! It's going to make us stop using combustion engines!


Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist.
By KaTaR on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist.
By Rhaido on 6/30/2009 4:24:44 PM , Rating: 3
"Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist.
by KaTaR on June 30, 2009 at 4:04 PM
He is an economist and has no scientific background at all."

Does a degree in Physics constitute "no scientific background at all"? Do you require a doctorate?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/p...

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.


RE: Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist.
By KaTaR on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
By Rhaido on 6/30/2009 4:50:16 PM , Rating: 3
I made no assertions as to his qualifications with regard to his work at the EPA. I merely questioned your position that one with an undergraduate degree in Physics "has no scientific background at all". If by "scientific background at all" you meant a minimum of a doctorate followed by 40 years of research, then my ignorance is to blame for the misunderstanding.


By menace on 6/30/2009 5:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
Economics is not just about analyzing a national economy it can be useful for analyzing just about any complex economic, social or political systems on many levels of scale.

Do you not think that economics should come into play in analyzing what sort of payoffs that the policy would have in terms of it's presumed goals (lower CO2 output) weighed against the economic costs to the nation and its citizenry? Pure science will lead to disastrous policy if the social costs are not properly weighed. These are the benefits an economist can bring to bear, especially to an agency that deals in policy (not science).


By knutjb on 6/30/2009 5:29:18 PM , Rating: 5
Dude, you will never accept ANY evidence if it goes against YOUR beliefs.

I just watched Alan Carlin explain his data on TV. He showed the projections of catastrophe from the UN and others and also showed the ACTUAL temperature data FROM REAL SCIENTIST, the projections are nowhere close to actual, who'da thought. He is an analyst analyzing the data, he didn't create the data, he analyzes, that is his job. He showed ACTUAL temperatures ARE FAR LOWER than the hypothesis predicts. His point is the hypothesis needs a rethink. The man IS NOT an activist.

By your slanderous standard he is "unqualified" for a job he's likely been doing longer than you've been alive, so he should be fired after 40 years of incompetence? PROVE IT. You should stop breathing your own methane, it is reducing your rational think abilities.


By JediJeb on 6/30/2009 6:55:08 PM , Rating: 5
Having dealt with the scientists at the EPA for 18 years I can say this guy is probably as qualified as any of them on any subject. Everyday I run samples on drinking water to make sure it isn't contaminated with hazardous chemicals. They scientist at the EPA write the methods we have to use. When we discover an error in them we are told that we can not deviate from them even if there is an error. Most are written for equipment that is one or two generations behind what is now available and if the new equipment can do the job better we are not allowed to use it to its fullest extent if it violates the old methods. One method we had to start using because the samples were required to be reported to the EPA just would not work, and we verified this with a few other independent labs. So we called the EPA and were told " oh that method doesn't work" and that " congress said we had to have a method in place by xxxxxx date so we sent that out, but we will send you the new one that works."

An even better one was when we asked someone from the EPA how they arrived at some results for a sample, and they said they ran it by a certain piece of equipment. The equipment isn't certified for use on that analysis and when we mentioned it to them the reply was " We are the EPA, we can use it even if it isn't approved"

So from my experience Mr. Carlin is probably just as qualified to give his interpertation of the data as anyone else working there.


By knutjb on 7/1/2009 2:27:04 AM , Rating: 1
Your beloved IPCC chief guru is an Industrial Engineer. Aren't they the ones telling us how bad things are?

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachaur...


By Cerin218 on 6/30/2009 4:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why as soon as someone is produced that has a dissenting opinion on global warming does someone else come out with a "yeah but, they aren't a scientist?" Alan Carlin studied the Cost Benefit Analysis of making change to offset climate change. He found that the CBA would be undesirable. Which it would. EU and Spain found that the exact kins of things in this bill sound good, but don't work. And tend to have a economically destructive effect. Then to tack on three pages of "extra" stuff and not allow anyone to read it? The reason you don't want anyone to read it is because you are trying to do something that someone would stop you from doing. That should scare people far more then what you are allowed to read. The Democrats are trying to pull some very shady things lately. I am not a climate change expert, but I am a common sense expert and how this is being presented doesn't add up.


By Cerin218 on 6/30/2009 4:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
Why as soon as someone is produced that has a dissenting opinion on global warming does someone else come out with a "yeah but, they aren't a scientist?" Alan Carlin studied the Cost Benefit Analysis of making change to offset climate change. He found that the CBA would be undesirable. Which it would. EU and Spain found that the exact kins of things in this bill sound good, but don't work. And tend to have a economically destructive effect. Then to tack on three hundred pages of "extra" stuff and not allow anyone to read it? The reason you don't want anyone to read it is because you are trying to do something that someone would stop you from doing. That should scare people far more then what you are allowed to read. The Democrats are trying to pull some very shady things lately. I am not a climate change expert, but I am a common sense expert and how this is being presented doesn't add up.


By andrinoaa on 6/30/2009 6:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't particularly care what people beleive or what what black holes they chase, but here in Southern Australia, the climate has already started to change and the oceans are becoming more acidic. To me this is VERY ALARMING. I don't need bogus scientists to tell me everything is ok. You can beleive what you will, but here on the ground we don't need to scratch too far to see something is happening.


By knutjb on 6/30/2009 7:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Where did he claim to be a scientist? He is an analyst with a scientific background. Scientists can't honestly review their own data, hence peer reviews. It took decades for Einstein to prove general relativity because he had to wait for others to collect data and compare it to his theory. Look at this man as taking an unbiased assessment of the data providing a different perspective that requires more study. He didn't imply all was fine, just the GW hypothesis needs a rethink.

Take a step back and reevaluate what's on the table and the politics involved. The Obama Admin has a radical left wing view on this subject, that doesn't mean they know more than everyone else or are even right on this subject.


By mindless1 on 6/30/2009 7:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, "something" but is that something solved by legislating carbon emissions or is that a waste of time and money, particularly time they should have spent addressing the other pollutants that DO matter?


By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 11:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it only comes from one area of activity on the globe - human.


Actually, even the IPCC acknowledges that 95% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year comes from nature, and man's CO2 production accounts for only 5% of the total.

Also, has it been proved that the oceans are absorbing CO2 from the air and that the air is not getting additional CO2 from the ocean? Perhaps the rise in CO2 originated in the ocean. I doubt whether anybody has even investigated that idea. They are too busy telling us it's all our fault, so we'd better obey all their restrictive new laws or we will die.

Here's an idea. What if the earth's rise in temperature is a result of natural solar cycles and slight orbital changes which have been known to occur, and the increase in energy/heat in our system has resulted in increased activity of aerobic microbes in the ocean, causing them to produce more CO2 and increasing the levels thereof? And what if the same effect is occurring with other natural processes that produce CO2, such as rock aging, and land-based aerobic organisms? Many chemical reactions have their rates and outputs increased by the introduction of more heat, and most microbes thrive in warmer temperatures. Nobody knows what's really causing it. It is therefore, at this stage in the game, foolish to enact economically damaging, freedom-restricting laws to force a "solution" that nobody can demonstrate will have any effect.

But then, solving environmental problems is not what GW legislation is about anyway. It's about social control, and it does a fine job of achieving that.


By adiposity on 7/1/2009 1:47:13 PM , Rating: 1
Regardless of where the CO2 comes from, aren't we increasing the amount that has to be absorbed by the ocean when we cut down forests? Just another issue to consider...

-Dan


By elgueroloco on 7/3/2009 8:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
Deforestation is another issue entirely. Deforestation is very definitely being caused and even carried out by man, and we therefore can stop it and all the problems it causes. I am very much in favor of measures to stop deforestation.

However, this ridiculous AGW sham scare is diverting all our energy, resources, and attention away from real environmental problems that we could actually solve. Instead of fixing anything, we are throwing our wealth away on a ridiculous witch hunt.


By andrinoaa on 7/1/2009 6:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I meant to say INCREASE in CO2. Your other "theory" is nuts. Just plain chemistry tells you there is a balance between co2 in the air and in the ocean. More co2 in the air means more co2 in the ocean to maintain the balance.


By JediJeb on 7/2/2009 2:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
Adsorption of CO2 will make the oceans more acidic, but if the global temperature is rising then the CO2 in the oceans should be falling. So I guess if it is rising then the global temperature must be falling. It is simple chemistry that drives how much CO2 can be dissolved in the water. So I guess if we are experiencing global warming then someone has figured out how to override basic laws of physics and chemistry to increase the CO2 in the ocean along with the CO2 in the air.


By Jabroney701020 on 6/30/2009 6:10:01 PM , Rating: 1
I think that your statement holds truth, but I also think that you are ignoring an important fact to sway your own argument. Maybe his education alone doesn't get him in the door as a "scientist" but the article does not state that he did any research:

quote:
'His report warned against making policy "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data"'


How I feel that your discussion is lacking is in this way. How many of us out there got a Bachelor's Degree and then went into a job in a partially-related or non-related field? Now how many of those people went on to become experts at their job through 10, 20 or 38 years of experience? If the answer to my 2nd question is ZERO then I would say that you are right, but it is completely possible for people to become credible experts at their jobs through experience after college. How else would anyone become a good president unless they went to president school? I wonder how long that degree would take.


RE: Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist.
By Hvordan on 6/30/2009 6:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
The issue with his credentials is that he has not worked with climate science for 38 years but economics. The NCEE specializes in "analyzing the economic and health impacts of environmental regulations and policies", not climate science.


RE: Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist.
By knutjb on 6/30/2009 6:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't that what the bill and GW are implying? All the health, economic and environmental harm?


By Hvordan on 6/30/2009 7:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
The report Carlin was commenting on had two findings:
quote:
* [...] the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases [...] in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.
* [...] that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.

If his comments had concerned itself with the welfare impact he might have been considered the right person for the job. His comments were essentially claiming that there is no GW, which I would not consider to be in his expertise.


By mindless1 on 6/30/2009 7:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
There is no issue with his credentials. A person need not have a degree, let alone doctorate in something, to have enough information that they pose a theory that can't be dismissed except with a preponderance of real evidence instead of wild speculations with holes in them wide enough to drive a Prius through.


By jimbojimbo on 7/1/2009 11:34:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yet you believe everything Gore tells you? What the hell's his scientific background?


By adiposity on 7/1/2009 1:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore is just (badly) summarizing the findings of scientists. If someone depends on him for scientific theory, they have a problem, but you can't assume all GW believers get their data from Al Gore.

-Dan


And now for the rest of the story...
By apshore on 6/30/2009 2:22:03 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."




RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By tcwjonny on 6/30/2009 2:36:18 PM , Rating: 5
Now who's not being transparent? It's almost as if the author of this article is biased or something.


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By rninneman on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By KaTaR on 6/30/2009 4:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
A standard college degree (B.S.) in Physics and a specialization (PHD) in a completely unrelated field does not make you and expert or even qualify as 'credentials'.


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By knutjb on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By Hvordan on 6/30/2009 4:44:39 PM , Rating: 1
What is the average anomaly for the first 5-years of those 11 years? What is the average of the last 5? Which one is bigger? How do you square that with the statement that there is a decline?


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By knutjb on 6/30/2009 5:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
LONG TERM TRENDS, not spikes and other anomalies.


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By Hvordan on 6/30/2009 5:45:33 PM , Rating: 3
Ok.. So average 60s < 70s < 80s < 90s < 00s. That's longer term.

But because excel shows a downward slope for the last 11 years (without showing the margin of error of the slope) I am supposed to accept that temperatures are declining?


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By knutjb on 6/30/2009 6:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like you're not including 1900<10s<20s<30s<40s<50s.

The 30s dust bowl period was the warmest decade in the 20th century, why didn't burn up after that?.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/climate/joe/1930s.php


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By Hvordan on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 2:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
The reason AGW wasn't happening in the 1930's was because Al Gore hadn't yet set up his trust fund.

Thankfully we've eliminated natural variability in the climate since the 1970's - the weather was far too unpredictable back then.

Now that we have been enlightened we know that bad weather is caused by CO2 and no longer need to do climate research. YAY!


By andrinoaa on 7/1/2009 3:31:49 AM , Rating: 1
Well the temperatures in Sthn Australia HAVE definetly been climbing, which shows that the problem is not stationary or simple like some think it is


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By KaTaR on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By knutjb on 6/30/2009 6:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't use your data.

He used EPA's data from US Gov sources. He compared actual temperatures, CO2 levels, and predicted temperature increases from all that CO2 and the data doesn't support massive temp increases predicted, hence the hypothesis needs a rethink.

It wouldn't be the first time somethings gone back to the drawing board for a rethink. Einstein did it with his theory of general relativity, that's how real science works, not with the heart but with the head.

GW activist prey on the heart and avoid the head because ANY contradictory information to GW is automatically decried as blasphemy. The individuals are then personally attacked as incompetent, unqualified, from the wrong field, etc... All without having had their data checked.

John Hadley the clock maker who enabled modern sea navigation had to jump through extra hurdles to prove his clock because the snobbish Royal Society didn't come up with idea first and couldn't deal with a "commoner" beating them to the massive 20,000 pound prize. So this method is nothing new.
http://www.nahste.ac.uk/isaar/GB_0237_NAHSTE_P0354...

GW activists operate the same way, if it's not from THEIR APPROVED SCIENTIST, it's automatically wrong. The same modus operandi of the Royal Society and others have used to thwart opposing ideas, processes, products, etc...

Don't forget the sun has the greatest impact on us and much of our temperature ups and downs correlate with other planets not impacted by man. The sun is NOT a constant energy source and has not been adequately factored in most research.

GW is a THEORY, not a FACT, the evidence isn't straight up black and white, if it were GW could be so, but it's not and requires much more UN-BIASED research before implementing RADICAL changes to our economies.

Look at Spain, the green revolution has led to 18% unemployment PRIOR to the world recession is very high when compared to other EU countries. Germany was able to cut the majority of it's pollution after shutting down Soviet era industry, not through solar or wind.

So why are you ridiculing the man?


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By KaTaR on 6/30/09, Rating: -1
By samoya22 on 6/30/2009 9:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
God, you argue so good, I want to have your babies.


RE: And now for the rest of the story...
By Rhaido on 7/1/2009 12:39:28 AM , Rating: 1
Kind of like having a lifelong politician with "no scientific background at all" recognized worldwide as a global warming expert. A pathetic attempt at being a scientist, it's obviously not his area of expertise and he fails miserably. And then wizards of smart give him the Nobel.

Oldie but goodie:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerr...

Speaking of Spain, they are forecasted to have near 20% unemployment next year. The remaining 80%+ will be gainfully employed installing wind turbines.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/span-m26...

http://newsinthesun.com/?p=2369

http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/artic...

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor...

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/04/24/spain.e...

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/business/e...

http://www.eumonitor.net/modules.php?op=modload&na...

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/04/24/afx6333...

http://www.randstad.com/the-world-of-work/spain-di...


By Hvordan on 7/1/2009 1:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
At least he listens to the so called experts in the field. In my opinion he's done a decent job compiling what's out there and advocating for what he believes in.

Obviously Monckton believes what he's advocating as well, but where's the science supporting it? I guess I'm still waiting for some coherent science supporting the skeptic point of view. In the meantime I'll stick with AGW.


By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 2:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
But it was the Nobel Peace Prize, not a real Nobel Prize (like Physics, Chemistry or any other science.)

Hell, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize - look at how well that worked out.

I'm suprised that Osama Bin Laden hasn't won one yet for his work revitalizing historic neighborhoods in New York City.


By corduroygt on 7/1/2009 4:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
Spain is remarkably like California, the nice weather, the rampant running cancer of environmentalism, the extremely high tax and unemployment rate. Even their language is the same.


By KaTaR on 7/1/2009 2:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
Dont know why you guys keep harping on Spain. Cap and trade in the EU has 25 participating countries (not one). If unemployment is what you want to talk about - pull the combined stats of the 25 countries (also known as the EuroZone). What you are doing is the equivalent of using Michigan's 14.1% unemployment number as that of the overall USA. Its wrong and misleading. Needless to say, focusing on a single outlier point as a basis for your overall reflects poor judgement.

That is exactly what Carlin did - misrepresented the actual temperature change trends by focusing on 1997 (see above posts for the link to data).


By knutjb on 7/1/2009 3:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
It's not what they had to do with GW, it's the mindset that exists when those who contradict the current scientific consensus. You have shown an inability to deal with abstract ideas, so... When Einstein proposed his best work he was a patent clerk, did that make his revelations any less significant? He was telling everyone Newton was wrong, an incredibly bold move, if not an insane move given Newton's great and amazing life's work. (Anyone who develops a field of mathematics, Fluxional Calculus, to prove his ideas is most certainly an icon) It was certainly viewed as insane when he proposed it. It took years for the community to come over to Einsteins ideas because he saw the data from a different perspective and the consensus refused to change without brute force.

My point is historically when someone comes along and punches a huge hole in the "scientific consensus" those at the alter of said consensus slander the one questioning the validity of it. Why, because they have so much invested in it they feel the need to treat it as blasphemy without even giving it an open minded review.

SO DON"T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS.

In all your trashing of Alan Carlin you have failed to notice Dr. R.K. Pachauri the head of the UN IPCC has a MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Some scientist eh? I am not trashing the Dr., merely making a point. See the site for his bio.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachaur...

You also tend to forget major SNAFUs from the consensus crowd, like Dr. James Hansen's temperature and massive fear mongering blunder a few years ago turning his former supervisor into a GW skeptic.There are lots of other sources for this subject, I just picked this one.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansen...

It has links in the web site too.

I am not convinced of GW due to the many things we don't yet know combined with the incredible push for act now or else mentality aligned with the GW crowd. Leaping before you look is usually a dangerous and rash behavior, rarely a good one. Given some of the GW SNAFUs in research what can be hurt by having outside peer review? I don't imply we stop pollution controls, just make advancements on better data than we have now.

I remember a BBC study of weather forecasters in the UK, simply looking outside and saying tomorrow will be just like today beat the best forecasters by 10%, 55% to 45% I think. Ooops, was that too abstract of thought again?


By foolsgambit11 on 6/30/2009 5:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anoma...

Just because 1998 was a particulary warm year doesn't mean you can say that temperatures have been declining since. For one, 2005 was warmer than 1998. For another, you need to establish a trend line so you can recognize outlying years. Even within an upward trend, there will be unusually high and unusually low data points. That doesn't invalidate the trend. And while it may look like temperatures are plateauing, you'll notice that the same thing happened in the early 80's and around 1990. Given our current understanding of the forcings working on global climate, we anticipate the trend to continue upward, rather than to begin to fall.

The confusion arises from the fact that the trend line gets modified each year as new data gets added. So the trend line would have been higher around 1998 a few years ago, but new data allows for a 'more accurate' trend line in that area, as the line conforms to all available data more closely. That's not bad science, though. That's good statistics. Something I'm sure someone with a PhD in Economics understands.


By adiposity on 7/1/2009 1:50:26 PM , Rating: 3
It's almost like

Michael Andrews

is

Michael Asher

-Dan


So we solve pollution by charging to pollute?
By Cerin218 on 6/30/2009 4:23:58 PM , Rating: 4
The big problem I have is that the mindset is that if you pollute more, you have to buy more carbon credits to offset the pollution. So you don't change your actual business practice to reduce pollutions, just pay more for the ability to do it. Where is the scientific proof that planting trees fixes pollution? Where exactly is Al Gore planting these trees? Basing policy on science that hasn't been irrefutably proven sounds like the dumbest thing in the world. Maybe I should start a company selling "the sky is falling" insurance. I suppose, socialism stops working when you run out of everyone else's money. Nationalizing banks and the GM cost quite a bit so they have to make it back somehow.




By foolsgambit11 on 6/30/2009 5:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The big problem I have is that the mindset is that if you pollute more, you have to buy more carbon credits to offset the pollution. So you don't change your actual business practice to reduce pollutions, just pay more for the ability to do it.
It depends on whether you have competition in your sector, and how much of a profit hit you'll take. For instance, if I make more trash at home, I have to pay more to have it picked up. If the cost to pick up an extra trash can isn't more than the convenience of throwing away whatever I want, then I won't change. If it is, then I will.

In a free market (or close to it), cap and trade can help to reduce CO2 emissions (always assuming you want to do that). Businesses will reduce their emissions to exactly the point where further reductions would cost more than the cost of carbon.

Unfortunately, there are major CO2 emitters who aren't in anything resembling a free market. You have no choice in your electricity provider, for instance. What is their motivation to reduce costs when you can't move to a cheaper provider? That's a sector where, in my un-expert opinion, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you just have to legislate a cap.


By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 2:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a sector where, in my un-expert opinion, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you just have to legislate a cap.

Or you could apply a tax on the fuel.

But Dems don't want to be seen as raising taxes! They will just charge you more for things and call it something other than a tax. How about a "puff?" A "carbon puff" sounds friendly! Better yet, a "cap!" A carbon cap! How fun!

How does a "carbon cap" work? You make them PAY more when they exceed it. How totally un-tax like!


By foolsgambit11 on 7/1/2009 4:17:00 AM , Rating: 2
A tax doesn't set an absolute limit on the amount of a pollutant that may be released though. The amount released will depend on the price the market can bear. If you need to set an absolute maximum, you need a cap.

I agree, there may be political reasons for going with a cap-and-trade model. But the model did work well for SO2 emissions when we in America invented it.

Anyway, you can see it as a tax if you like. But it would be more accurate to call it a fee. The same way you pay a fee when you get rid of all your garbage. I don't get to dump my sewage into the creek because I don't want to pay to have my septic tank pumped and taken away. When companies dump waste into public spaces, they should pay for that privilege, and that includes CO2 into the air. Of course, you probably feel that CO2 isn't a pollutant. But I don't feel like having that debate, so call it a tax if you want.


By corduroygt on 7/1/2009 4:24:55 AM , Rating: 1
Solution to CO2 pollution is to kill anyone who says it's a pollutant. Reduces both CO2 production and AGW bullshit in one shot.


By jimbojimbo on 7/1/2009 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you can see it as a tax if you like
I call it free and easy money for the politicians.

Water vapor is still the most abundant and most affecting greenhouse gas there is. How come we aren't doing anything about that? Oh yeah, they can't tax the hell out of the oceans, just the US slaves.


By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 2:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
A fee would be to pay for a service that is rendered, but no "service" is being rendered. It is taking money from one industry and giving it to another. The industries benefiting from the money are being given corporate welfare, and welfare is paid for through taxes.

And Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant; all known life DEPENDS on it. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than oxygen and water.


By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 3:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
One last thing...
quote:
If you need to set an absolute maximum, you need a cap.

But how do you enforce said cap? Through the use of fines.

You can't possibly think that people will suddenly stop emitting CO2 just because some artifical "cap" has been reached. They will simply be made to pay, and pay dearly we all will.


This is news worthy?
By Mr772 on 6/30/2009 2:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't we here for 8 years that the Bush administration was doing the same thing? Are we going to have to listen to 4-8 years of the same old line from the opposite side now? What a waste of energy.




RE: This is news worthy?
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 2:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
We did HEAR it.


RE: This is news worthy?
By novacthall on 6/30/2009 2:38:52 PM , Rating: 4
It doesn't really matter, does it? Is government scrutiny not the duty of all free people, regardless of their political affiliation?


RE: This is news worthy?
By rcc on 6/30/2009 4:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. I do wish more people had that attitude these days. Unfortunately, more and more people wait for someone else to tell them what their opinion should be.

And here we are, for better or worse.


RE: This is news worthy?
By MrPoletski on 7/1/2009 10:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
This is the EPA we're talking about.

they do things like tell a load of rescue workers that the air after this disaster is fine to breath and stand by watching them all get cancer and die... STILL denying there was any danger, despite those pesky 3rd party conclusions.

and not any old rescue workers either!


I've got a few words to say..
By goku on 7/1/2009 2:01:20 AM , Rating: 1
Global Warming due to green house gasses is a real problem, but that doesn't mean the temperature of the earth is/was going down. There is a reason why the temperature of the earth is going down and I'd like to explain.

1. In the 1950s Particulate Matter was a very big problem, PM didn't let all the heat from the sun get in which is why people who say GW is the same nonsense from the 50s where people were scared of global cooling. Global cooling would have been a real issue in some way had it not been addressed by higher emissions standards. The Particulate Matter in the air helped masked the effects of CO2 which is why you don't hear much or anything about global warming from that time period.

2. The sun spot cycles, I don't know too much about this but what I do know is that when this activity ceases (which apparently has happened and we're in the middle of) the amount of heat that comes from the sun diminishes and therefore you get cooling of the earth.

What does this all mean? Well it means that there are forces working against global warming that we as people have not an impact on but on the same token, we're in a way fighting those natural cycles as well by putting green house gasses into the air. Humans are in fact going to be the reason for global warming, the question is how quickly will it happen. The factors above are only going to delay the effects of greenhouse gasses and when the solar flare cycles return and or PM goes down some more (china, mexico), you'll then see why GHG are such a problem.

The only reason you people bitch about how Global Warming is "fake" or "unsubstantiated" is because you know the implications of having to change your ways. It's not about the facts or the science, it's about having to change your ways and not being able to drive your inefficient vehicles and heat/cool the night sky with your poorly insulated homes using inefficient households HVAC systems. If you people were told Global Warming was good and needed and that you needed to put more CO2 into the air, I'm pretty sure you'd be all up and giddy, not giving two shits about whether or not Global Warming was real and or a good thing.




RE: I've got a few words to say..
By andrinoaa on 7/1/2009 3:47:12 AM , Rating: 1
what does it all mean? You are not a scientist. Sun spot activity has been shown to have minimal influence. Just look at the rising temp charts, it all starts from about the 40ies, the era of mass industrialization. This looks to me to be a strong bit of evidence! Note, I don't claim this to be proof just a piece of the puzzle.


RE: I've got a few words to say..
By goku on 7/1/2009 4:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
Sun spot activity or lack thereof was apparently the cause for the mini ice age towards the end of the 19th century so to say that sun spot activity isn't important seems to be a great oversight.


RE: I've got a few words to say..
By jimbojimbo on 7/1/2009 11:45:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you're right. The Sun is obviously the least powerful thing that affects us. Its activity couldn't affect us in any way.

Do you also believe the entire universe revolves around the Earth? Also, do you really believe man burning fossil fuels is melting the glaciers on Mars?


By adiposity on 7/1/2009 1:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
The theory of GW assumes most heat comes from the Sun...the question is, how much is trapped in our atmosphere?

-Dan


fail.
By Schrag4 on 6/30/2009 1:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law , and overwhelming transparency .


1. AGW does not represent a crisis.
2. When science is used to debunk AGW, it's shouted down (AGW is a religion).
3. The current administration has already broken bankruptcy laws. I know this is the EPA head speaking, but the way I see it, she's Obama's mouthpiece on AGW.
4. Transparency? LOL




RE: fail.
By stirfry213 on 6/30/2009 2:01:24 PM , Rating: 1
Fail indeed.

This what I see as the real issue. We have a situation (not gonna call it a problem, because it may or may not be) where there are 100 variables to solving exactly what is happening. Someone presents a solution that fits only 5 of the variables, and all of a sudden, we have AGW. Honestly, I could probably find a more compelling argument for the global warming (or the lack there of) in the Bible, and I think religions are a farse.

Because greed/selfishness is the prime motivating factor of the human race, I highly doubt we'll ever know.


RE: fail.
By rninneman on 6/30/2009 4:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
I love how the Obama disciples/sheep have rated you down but have no rebuttal to your statement. That's right, keep drinking the Kool-aid libtards.


RE: fail.
By adiposity on 7/1/2009 1:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
He hasn't made any arguments, only assertions. Would you like someone to respond with several "wrong"s?

-Dan


Trust in the Three Wolf Moon "Official" T-Shirt
By Mitch101 on 6/30/2009 1:51:18 PM , Rating: 5
If you wear this shirt then you are immune to global warming.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mountain-Three-Wolf-T-Sh...

Verify the comments for proof and check the pictures to know who is immune.




By maverick85wd on 7/1/2009 6:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
ya, but only if you have the right pants to go with it.
http://www.amazon.com/Zubaz-Pants/dp/B000WVXM0W/re...


if they ARE trully open then release his report
By kattanna on 6/30/2009 2:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
they cannot say they are open if they will not release his report.

anyone have any links to this report?




By Smartless on 6/30/2009 2:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if this is legitimate or uncensored.
http://hi-caliber.blogspot.com/

Funny part was I tempted to link in George Carlin since it came up more times.


By kattanna on 6/30/2009 2:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
hmm.. if it is IT, the opening remarks are very interesting.

if it is to be believed, then the EPA is breaking tradition by not internally reviewing outside science before deciding how to deal with it, in the case of IPCC report and the new clean air act.

that in and of itself is very troubling


Big shock
By shiner on 6/30/2009 1:58:37 PM , Rating: 4
Censorship you can believe in!




"Solar Radiation Management"
By Spacecomber on 6/30/2009 10:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
Lost in the partisan discussion of whether Carlin's opinions were quashed by the Obama administration is any meaningful discussion of what exactly Carlin's position is.

I found the reference to his paper advocating "solar radiation management" as the avenue to pursue, instead of trying to manage greenhouse gases, both interesting and troubling. Here's the link to the abstract of this article, http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/whyadiffere... apparently his site is too busy to access the full article at this time.

I had recently seen an article in the Atlantic Monthly which discussed this "solar radiation management" option, and though it is relatively inexpensive and allows us to continue with business as usual, I'm not too sure that I like the sounds of this approach. But see for yourself, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/climate-engi... .




By Spacecomber on 7/1/2009 9:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that, the link to Carlin's paper picks up the comma in the sentence, taking you nowhere; try this, instead.

http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/whyadiffere...


WTF is happening to our country?
By Regs on 6/30/2009 6:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
If free market is the rope we hang ourselves with, than over regulation and fear is the chair we kick out from underneath ourselves.

I don't know much about Alan Carlin's work, research ethics, or motives, so I'm not going to smash the EPA just yet. Though to me it's becoming more rhetoric than ever before than actual science, and it scarily reminds me how Hitler convinced people of their problems pre-war world II. It's simple psychology. Humans in the history of man, fear the unknown and will look to their emotions instead of their minds to rationalize the unexplainable. 300 years ago we knew the earth was flat; 250 years ago the sun revolved around the earth; 200 years witches and mass murders were possessed by the devil himself. What will we know tomorrow?

Paranoia and fear will drive us into extinction (the roots of war), not Co2.




By andrinoaa on 7/1/2009 4:06:54 AM , Rating: 1
so what you are saying is that scientists all over the world are falling for the same shit? Since the scientific community is only interested in the observed facts and then proposing a theory that tracks the facts, how can that ever become "more rhetorical"? The interesting human behaviour in all this this how people react to the facts and how some react by denying all. That to me is the sub text of fear!
Your first statement brings in an interesting observation. lol How can over regulation have caused the global economic meltdown? Me thinks it was quite the opposite - many people in control turning a blind eye.


God Forbade!
By JCamb on 6/30/2009 3:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Other released emails reveal that Carlin was forbade to .......


Spell check can only help you so much... maybe DailyTech should spring a few bucks and have a human being read the articles...?

Don't you love being able to say "Gotcha!"?




For more information about this
By AlexWade on 6/30/2009 6:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
Visit wattsupwiththat.com. There was an anonymous EPA whistleblower there that exposed the EPA report. The site also has a link to the censored report and more information about it. The report in itself is full of inaccuracies but only because those who prepared the report did not have time to fact check. The authors of the report were given only a week to prepare it. Also note that someone in the EPA who did not agree with the official EPA line was unofficially demoted.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-insid...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/online-globa...

I suggest you read these pages to get a better picture. Then make your opinions after you read the EPA whistleblower comments. He posted as "anonymous" but his identity was verified to be authentic by the moderators of the site.




Secret Identity
By fenderkb76 on 6/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Secret Identity
By Hvordan on 7/1/2009 1:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
As much as I don't agree with the point being made, I don't believe you should reject anything based on the messenger alone.


change the department name
By spepper on 7/1/2009 10:56:17 AM , Rating: 2
another example of classic government coverup due to hysterical attachment to a shaky theory at best (AGW)-- the government employees in the EPA who follow their boss's wishes (PresBO)by promoting the notion of AGW and therefore all of the ensuing goverment regulations and taxes to "control and pay for" it-- it is the White House that steers the policy and direction of the EPA, NOT the other way around, as it should be, but sadly, is not, due to the propaganda being forced upon it from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.-- therefore, during this president's administration, the EPA should be spelled out (if it were the least bit honest) as the Environmental Propaganda Administration!




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki