A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

Rmoen — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:21:57 GMT

So what did he say? You have thousands of readers who want to understand all the facts surrounding global warming. In the absence of Newsweek's comment on the memo's contents it looks to me as just another instance of character assassination by those who do not want to discuss actual climate facts.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanusa.com

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

MJ000777 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:38:02 GMT

Of course Media Matters is an unbiased source. You hint that Fox is biased, but Media Matters is not. That is ridiculus as MM is a mouthpiece for liberals. Very fair and balanced on your part Gaggle. Like Mr. Moen said, what did he say?

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

jpvarga5 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:09:21 GMT

The man in question has worked at the EPA for 38 years. Why is his report any more invalid then the new people there out to promote Obama's energy agenda at any cost?

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

bojack27 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:16:31 GMT

How much did the Obama administration pay this blog to post such nonsense? Then if it is a bogus claim then show proof of global warming on television for all to see and have a debate over its merit.

Demo(n)crats are always talking about the scare tactics of the right but this is a blatant grasp of power away from the oil, coal, car and energy producing companies that don't fit into the Green Plan!

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

Descent — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:03:25 GMT

That isn't an incomplete draft. That IS the document in its entirety.

The report in question was an unsolicited series of comments compiled by an economist within the EPA whose boss allowed him to work on it outside of his area of expertise and responsibility on agency time. This same economist has generated multiple iterations of the same report over the last two years and has been given multiple opportunities to host seminars with audiences both inside and outside of the agency. The content of the report itself was, in many regards, a copy-and-paste job from contrarian blog postings.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

MBighk — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:29:22 GMT

"Proof" is not a term used in science. It's used in math and law.

For good explanations on skeptics claims and questions and links to real climate science go to:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

If you expect "proof," what would it look like?

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

Still Free in the USA — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:05:28 GMT

The answer is "yes" and its "Bush's Fault". Same with the flat tire I had this morning "It's Bush's Fault" I love this; we can remain "victims" and not accept responsiblity for anything! cool

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

Libertarian For Life — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:07:45 GMT

The global warming debacle is the largest scam ever perpetrated in the history of the world. If you don't believe me, just go find a copy of the 1976 Time Magazine with the cover "The Coming Ice Age". Just 30 years ago we were going to freeze to death and have global cooling.

I remember in my science class the students were terrified because our teacher told us that the glaciers would come all the way down to OHIO and our food supply would disappear because no food/grain could be grown in the corn belt since it would be covered in ice. Yeah, what fools they were. That histeria fueled a massive funding tidal wave to whack job scientific researchers. Then, as today, it was a story right out of a children's book with "Chicken Little". The Sky Is Falling!

If you don't believe me, here's a link to the article. If you don't believe the 'net, go to your local library and look it up on microfiche or whatever they store it on now.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

For all you libs who think the world is frying, stop frying your brain and use some logic. It is totally myopic to believe that the human race is causing global warming. People, we aren't that important, nor are we that powerful. If it is warming, or cooling, then it ain't us!! IT'S THE SUN you MORONS and you foolish belief in this nonsense is going to allow the politicians to rape us of even more tax money, lay on even more opressive legislation and take away even more of our freedoms. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

dtabb — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:48:47 GMT

The science, right or wrong, isn't the issue.

The issue is one doesn't approach scientific study with a set outcome in mind and disregard all data that may dispute that preconceived outcome.

The problem is the EPA told Carlin that his report didn't fit, to wit:

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision, I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

There should always be room for skepticism in government. There's no tolerance here. There is only an agenda, regardless of right or wrong science.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

Ronxyz — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:53:00 GMT

Inhofe is a moron. His infamy is frightening for so many ridiculous opinions that are based on nothing but his allegiance to god, which, by the way, means fear. Time to wake up, Jim, and smell the roses that are left.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

randym54 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:01:07 GMT

Politician and reporters are typically trained outside of science and engineering. In the Art logic they are taught but it is not constrained by reality or Mother Nature simply internal consistency. Just because you can dream up a thing does not mean that that thing can be done or should be done. The two major voices about the alleged “Global Warming” in the later part of the Twentieth Century are Dr. James Hansen and Al Gore. Dr Hansen holds a PhD in Atmospheric Physics while Al Gore went to Vanderbilt and Harvard, but I could not find his area of studies. As best I can tell neither are trained as climatologist or meteorologist.

First, Dr. Hansen and Mr. Gore both claim that the Earth’s climate should be static, while the geophysics and the geologic record contradict this premise.

Second, it is claimed by Dr Hansen and the United Nation Panel on Climate Change that the only possible source of temperature change is the release of carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. But Dr. Hansen and the United Nation’s Panel on Climate Change has not address that three of the four global temperature monitors have decreased in the last nine years, the only exception is the one produced by Dr. Hansen.

Third, are climate models a forecast of the future constrained by reality of Mother Nature or a philosopher dream? To this question I look to some of the earliest work done in climatology by Dr. Edward N. Lorenz. Dr. Lorenz was trained at Dartmouth, Harvard, and MIT. He discovered Chaos Theory, the Lorenz Attractor and the Butterfly Effect. These discoveries came about from his work on early weather perdition models. To make a long story short, in the early 60’s he was running a computer model and saw an interesting event and he wanted to revisit. So he stopped the computer program and reloaded the information from the printout into the model and restarted it. Within a short period of time the weather model diverged radically from the earlier result. After a thorough study he found that the information that had been printed out was to six decimal places, internally the computer program was doing its calculation to nine decimal places. An error in the billionths gave completely different result. From this he determined that weather is initial condition dependant, the problem we do not know what the initial conditions are to an accuracy to predict the weather in the future, will not more than a few day…. And led the coining of the phase that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil in the fall can change the course of a hurricane in the Atlantic in the next summer.

Finally, if your review the climate models from starting in 2002, what did the IPCC model predict and what are the actual observed results over the last 7 years as CO2 has continued to increase due to nature and burning of fossil fuels?

Graph courtesy of SPPI

The Global Monthly Temperature Anomalies for January 2002 to April 2009 the IPCC model predicts a temperature rise band between a high of +5.3 Degrees Celsius per Century to a low of +2.4 Degree Celsius per Century while the observed Global Monthly Temperature is -1.9 Degrees Celsius per Century. This is a difference of a low 4.3 Degree Celsius per Century to a high of 7.2 Degrees Celsius per Century!!!! As can seen the IPCC models the one produced by the UN predicted that global temperatures would be steadily warming; however the global temperatures have been cooling. As Dr. Richard Feynman said: If the data don’t agree with the theory, the theory’s wrong—regardless of what Dr James Henson says or how he militate the data to prove global warming.

The observed temperature data don’t match what the model predicts. In science and engineering (my field), we look at how the experiment is designed and the results from those experiments. A mathematical model is simply that a bunch of equations that have to be internally consistent within the computer program AKA model. Mother Nature determines if the “model” is a fair representation of the actual physical system … the Earth’s Atmosphere. When you check reality and the model’s results does not match then there was something wrong with the model’s design, or whether the data were right and the theory wrong. Either way, you go back to step one and start from scratch… this is science and engineering not feel good consensus but open loud discussion. Not hiding the opposite views.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

mikermoon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:07:40 GMT

I read the 98-page document. Carlin was responding to an open invitation by EPA officials for internal comments. He has a degree in physics and a PhD in economics. He is obviusly very knowledgeable, and has been with EPA for 38 years. His main points are hard to argue against. Satellite temperature data for the lower atmosphere, available continuously since 1978, gives different readings than surface thermometers, and shows no increase at all. Most thermometers are in or close to cities, and cities retain heat with all the black roofs, concrete, and asphalt. And, even surface measurements since 1998 show a downward trend. He is citing papers from many academic researchers who study temperature data, no fools, no idiots, no charlatans.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

tyler214 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:12:03 GMT

The argument that humans could never affect the climate doesn't hold up. The same thing was said about pollution, and fishing.

"How could puny humans hurt all the oceans and rivers of the world, big as they are, by dumping some waste materials? How could catching some fish wipe out entire species? The world is just too big for humans to have any significant effect on it."

The facts, as we now know, are that human activity has been responsible for changing water quality and fish populations on a global scale, and it is perfectly plausible that two centuries of burning fossil fuels has released enough CO2 to change global climate.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

pduncan2000 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:26:04 GMT

An article written 35 years ago about the climate conditions regarding the cooling trend they were alluding to has since been recast Mr. so called, "Libertarian for Life." In 35 years a lot of pollution has happened over the decades. The weather is not the same anymore. They predicted a build up of Ice Shelves and colder weather for the future. That is not the case now is it?

There is a nationwide conspiracy by the petroleum institute to crush any detrimental news about oil and it's bad effects on the climate. This conspiracy policy mimics the Tobacco industry efforts since the 1960's, regarding the effects of tobacco on your health are as yet unproven to cause cancer or lung disease. It is an industry defense to save itself.

Do you see why they would promote this line of thought? They want the public to believe in Unicorns and Santa Clause.

What benefit is gained and who prospers from climatologist scientist annual reports on the effects of climate change and who benefits from their findings? Ask yourself that question. Then ask who benefits and profits from the petroleum industry fed reports against the claims of the scientist?

I suggest you read the article you referred to that is 35 years old now and you can clearly see their expectations have not developed as anticipated.

If you think it is a way for politicians to usher in more taxes under your nose, I would say to you that this claim is Moronic and you are the fool, not the scientist.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

pduncan2000 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:36:21 GMT

If you read this article completely and think the position of the author of the report is valid, I would refer you to the paragraph in the article that states the veracity of the author. here it is:

"Neither scientists nor administration officials are swayed much by Carlin's or Inhofe's claims. For one -- and the EPA is quick to point out -- Carlin isn't an environmental researcher, he's an economist. What's more, the report was entirely his idea to research and produce. EPA officials never asked him to do it, hence why they didn't give it top billing when he finished. "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false,'' the EPA said in a statement. "The individual in question...was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.'' Climate scientists have also taken to a respected science blog to point out shaky scientific ground on which Carlin built his claims."

Again I ask you to consider the question of who prospers financially from the claims for and against climate change by the petroleum industry? The climatologist? or the Oil industry?

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

davix — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:50:21 GMT

Putting aside the science, the question is how does our society mitigate the possible assects of CO2?

Cap and trade and buying "carbon credits" are just other forms of taxation and are not imperical solutions. The government wants to "do" something? How about requiring every new building (commerical or residential) be equiped with gird ties units that will allow for the installation of solar panels or wind turbines? That way excess energy can be feed back into the grid. Overtime these buildings will add a substantial amount of energy to the grid.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

dtabb — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:54:19 GMT

Well, pduncan2000, read your first paragraph, perhaps more than once. You're saying the "scientists" were wrong then, but they're sure as heck right this time.

Then you back up your statements with conspiracy theories. You'll be able to spout some more soon as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 (no 1960s science there, eh?).

Here's the conspiracy: scientists have no income other than grants. Climate change is the biggest generator of government grants in history. But god help those who don't tow the government line. No hypotheses for the political agenda (the grantor) means no grants means no income means no real science. Open up your eyes!

Or, just sit back and have another Jack...

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

Libertarian For Life — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:00:52 GMT

Tyler214: If you think the increase in CO2 is truly causing 'global warming", then perhaps you should stop exhaling because according to your logic, you are contributing to the problem.

pduncan2000: Your debate skills are lacking and you have committed a cardinal debate sin - you have contradicted yourself. Pity. You denouce the scientists who wrote the article 30 years ago but you have faith in them now. Although I'm sure that several have passed, I would bet money that many of those 30 year ago scientists are still out there. The same scientists that are crying wolf today. Perhaps you should stop exhaling too. You are also contributing to the problem.

re: A "Suppressed" EPA Report? Not Exactly

odooley — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:33:26 GMT

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/912_liftoff_atm.html

link to nasa for earth's atomsphere

Point 1: If you adhere to the scientific method then when your measured results DO NOT MATCH your predicted results then you must revise your hypothesis.

Since all the "global warming" predictions of the 1990's have been proven false (ie since 1998-2001 depending on data set) ergo the Earth is now cooling you might want to stick to the approved scientific method.

This has happened in the past as well for example [quote]The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online July 13, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

[/quote]

In addition the observed warming of planets Mars, Jupiter and Pluto and the same time as the Earth was back when would tend to lead one to at least consider solar activity (Habibullo Abussaamatov St Petersburg research) as the main driver particularly considering it matches with the past ie the Maunder Minimum a period in 1645 when those astronomers did not detect a lot of sunspot activity and it does coincide with the Little Ice Age.

(Also to consider is axial tilt and wobble of the Earth itself generally thought to be a contributing factor in various Ice Ages).

For a journalist (ie scientifically ignorant and mathmatically challenged) not have bad and fairly well written:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

So given that 99.96% (see nasa link) of the Earth's atomsphere IS NOT CARBON DIOXIDE. In fact the greenhouse gases only account for 3% of Earth's atomsphere (volume) and are water vapour/clouds (97% of the greenhouse gases), the rest are carbon dioxide, ozone, NH4, N2O

So shaving with Occam's Razor and using the scientific method it would seem that only the willfully delusional or pro-slavery/pro-tyranny statist could say with a straight face that "global warming is settled science".

As far as the current trend of either the ignorant or statist to substitute "climate change" for "global warming":

Sure you are going to regulate the Earth's climate doing X - oh and next week I believe you will stop the Earth spinning on it's axis, ban the electromagnetic force and change the nature of gravity.

Above bit of sacrasm pretty much shows how delusional any human activity is going to control the Earth's climate change in view of the fact of the amount of energy we receive from the sun (please liberals guess at the amount), the various strata of the atomsphere with different thermal, chemical, and material properties, not to mention all the ocean currents, jet streams, volcanoes, Earth's core, heat capacity of various oceans, emissivity of various areas of land and so forth.

As a final note could any "global waming advocate is caused by Man and Mother Gaia is mad at us" even take a stab at how you would set the boundary conditions from space (conduction, convection, radiation & chemical/molecular reaction) thru the various strata of the atomsphere and appropriate flow / convection coefficients ?