Political Discussions
Bad news for the Gore-distas
Posted by anticsrocks • 7/07/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: climate change, epa, global warming, lies, obama, suppressed report
Once again, I have to harp on the lack of the promised transparency by the Obama administration. Suppression of the EPA report saying that the science behind man-made global warming is suspect shows that Obama cares more for ideology than Mother Earth.
www.floppingaces.net/2009/07/07/another-inconvenient-fact-for-gore-his-mini...
User Comments
-
Another good opportunity for me to post this...
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
"Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."
www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
But how could the globe be warming when there has been soo much snow this winter??
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM
How deniers use a strawman argument to deceive people:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
The Great Petition Fraud:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
More:
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D16AD4B03B869098
For those questioning or seeking more information on global warming:
www.cnas.org/naturalsecurity/consequences/climate-change
"In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released nearly unanimous findings that it is "unequivocal" that the climate is and will continue to change, and that human generation of greenhouse gases is responsible for most related changes since the 1950s."-
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
If you keep repeating it, maybe it might become true...
So if we watch a bunch of youtube videos by the drones that owe their paycheck to backing up their boss, (Gore) then we can find the truth and the truth will set us free.
*yawn* Ruinous....same old, same old.
-
-
WHy is there such a resistence to the fact that we have an effect on the planet we live on?
We clear cut forests, we drain the earth of fuels and resources (until we bleed the earth dry) we drill, we build, we pollute. We literally change environments and eco-systems for our own comfort.
How does that NOT affect the environment?
Our current weather pattern is NOT normal, scientists agree, something is wrong. We are the most prolific and destructive species on this planet (even insects fall to the natural balance of nature) of course we have something to do with this. Of course we have helped these changes along.
To think otherwise is outright denial - like saying "Gee officer, yeah I'm drunk, but that's not what caused the accident!".
Personal responsibility, people. Take it.-
Hey! I picked up some litter yesterday!
-
-
Senator James Inhofe received more than a million dollars from the oil, gas, and utility sectors since taking office. Only John Cornyn has received more.
Golly gee, I wonder why Inhofe claims global warming is a hoax. -
That hardly appears that the Obama admin. is surpessing something. At worst, some middle management guy thought it best to have a one voice strategy. -
This image shows the instrumental record of global average w:temperatures as compiled by the w:NASA's w:Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The data set used follows the methodology outlined by Hansen, J., et al. (2006) "Global temperature change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103: 14288-14293.
Following the common practice of the w:IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990.
This figure was originally prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly available data and is incorporated into the Global Warming Art project.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming-
Yes, and it is a pretty picture. All red lines with blue dots. Very colorful.
-
Yes, and it represents scientific data, collected by NASA!
I know, I know... Don't bring facts into the discussion. Right-wingers have to walk lockstep with their cult, and they must speak out against the science of global warming, no matter what the vast majority of scientists say. -
Do they? Not being a right winger, I wouldn't know. Good thing you don't make your responses in the form of personal attacks, sati. You really oughta watch that video that timethief posted.
thistimethisspace.com/2009/07/04/openminded-or-closedminded/
But you won't. It requires an open mind. You don't possess one. You already think anyone who disagrees with you is a nut job and you never concede a point to anyone.
There are three lies - Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. For every pretty little graph you can conjure up sati, I can show you another one that proves it wrong.
Gosh, if global warming is real, then why did Obama suppress that EPA report that said otherwise? Hmmm. -
wow it went up 1 degree celsius. how do we know its not natural?
-
-
I thought I'd research this a little. It turns out, the main author of the "suppressed" climate report isn't even a scientist. He's an economist!
First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That’s not necessarily a problem – perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? – but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don’t know is a leading light of the Friends of Science – a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/-
Gosh, you almost got it right, sati. Nice try, next time dig a little deeper.
"We spoke to an embattled Dr. Carlin on the phone today, and, though he does fear losing his job because of his opinion, he has the strength of his beliefs. He told us that in 40 years of working for the government, he can’t remember any other time such pressure has been put on him. But you can hear in his voice that Dr. Carlin, who got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT, is not easily silenced.
blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/
Now before you go all ballistic and start shouting that I quoted from the Heritage Foundation, calm down sati. Here is the same thing from CBS.
"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.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "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."
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.sh...
Sorry sati. LOL. And you looked so excited with that exclamation point and everything.
"He's an economist!"
Ha ha
Oh and his co-author, John Davidson?
yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/staff.nsf/348bbac1f87821598525647e007ba7c7/d43600ea...
"Education:
Ph.D., Physics, 1972, University of Michigan
Previous Experience:
Staff Member for Energy Programs, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.
Staff Member, Energy Policy Project, Ford Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Postdoctoral Scholar, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Selected Publications:
Global Energy Futures and the Carbon Dioxide Problem, Council on Environmental Quality, 1981, staff coauthor.
Energy chapters of Environmental Quality, Council on Environmental Quality, 1976-1980, staff coauthor.
A Time to Choose: America's Energy Future, Report of the Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation, Ballinger Publishing Co., 1974, staff coauthor."
He seems pretty credentialed to me. -
You don't find it at all suspicious that a person whose main profession is with the economy and not in environmental sciences is saying we shouldn't regulate emissions and other behaviors?
Think about it - regulating these things has an effect on the corporations, and that has an effect on the economic well being of said corporations. Lobbyists abound, Antics - whether they're on a company's payroll or not.
I prefer the scientific data from those whose interests lie with people and the earth, not with dollars and corporations. -
Their whole argument is not that carbon is a problem, but that the data is inconclusive and we should wait. The vast majority of scientists disagree and believe we need to act now.
-
And there are reports coming out of Britain, which has had a system like our cap and trade for a while, saying that it does not reduce emissions. Personally, I think that something we breath out is not a pollutant, but none-the-less it is what Obama wants, it serves his agenda, so it shall come to pass.
-
AR, you don't understand the science, so why not trust the scientists rather than regurgitating right-wing talking points?
-
First of all, I don't even subscribe to right wing talking points, and secondly, You of all people want to lecture me about talking points? That is laughable.
And lastly, read this. I mean, I know you won't, but I am at least asking you to read it.
"‘In the real world, indicators are moving stubbornly in the wrong direction. The world has been re-carbonising, not de-carbonising. The evidence is that the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying approach have had and are having no meaningful effect whatsoever.’"
breakthroughgen.org/2009/07/08/new-report-calls-for-a-fresh-approach-to-cli...
www.naturalchoices.co.uk/British-Climate-Change-Act-doomed?id_mot=2
members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1245375273.html
-
-
It's best to look to climatologists and those who are active in climate research when seeking information regarding climate change and global warming. So why do deniers, corporate interest groups and far right ideologues get so much of their info from meteorologists, petroleum geologists, biologists and even economists?
A vast majority of those who actively study climate change agree that global warming is real and humans play a role.
Regarding the accusations that Dr. Carlin's study was suppressed...
"...Alan Carlin, an EPA economist and researcher, who presented a paper to his bosses that said the science on global warming is inconclusive. Carlin's bosses at the EPA told him his research wasn't convincing and told him to work on other tasks, like a market incentives report."
"The emails between the EPA bosses and Carlin were then sent to the CEI, who saw this as proof positive that the administration was censoring science. In reality, it looks like the EPA told Carlin to work on other things because his work on this issue was lousy."
Sorry, The EPA Isn't Censoring Staffers Who Think Global Warming Is A Hoax
www.businessinsider.com/sorry-the-epa-isnt-shutting-down-its-critics-2009-7
EPA's Jackson Refutes Claims Agency Suppressed Greenhouse Gas Study
online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090707-711989.html
NASA's Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist, deconstructs Dr. Carlins study here:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
Other articles that refute the study:
EPA ‘suppression’ story grows, despite shoddy science in report
www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-epa-suppression-story-grows
An Attack on EPA’s Policy Process Fails Peer Review
www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/dude-wheres-my-war-on-science/-
Carlin's an economist -- not a climatologist, so what's he doing politicising climate change when our tax dollars are paying him to do economics research? He should be fired.
-
"He should be fired." Especially since you don't agree with him. I guess by your logic, then you denounce anything that Gore says, since he isn't a climatologist?
-
@Ruinous...if he is such a bad employee, and his work was "lousy," I wonder how he lasted 20 years in the EPA?
What is it the the left is so afraid of? Why do you never want to discuss opposing viewpoints? I thought libs were supposed to be so "open to change" and new ideas?
Anyone have an answer for that? And sati, before you hit the reply link and start cracking your knuckles with a "everything about the right is emotion and they hate their country" response, try and give me an answer that isn't rhetoric.
Why is the far left afraid of opposing viewpoints? -
"He should be fired." Especially since you don't agree with him. I guess by your logic, then you denounce anything that Gore says, since he isn't a climatologist?
Gore's agenda is supported by the vast majority of scientists. Although he's not a scientist, he's acting as a spokesman for the science and won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing that. Carlin is not a scientist, nor is he promoting science, nor is he doing his job as an economist.
AR, you're not a scientist, nor do you understand the science, so why are you promoting the right-wing agenda of promoting the rhetoric that global warming is a hoax? -
Oh, excuse me. Tell me, what University did you get your smock from, sati?
I swear every time, it is the same with you. No matter what, the right is to blame and the left are the heroes. Don't you do any original thinking of your own? At all? -
"@Ruinous...if he is such a bad employee, and his work was "lousy," I wonder how he lasted 20 years in the EPA?"
The article never states that Dr. Carlin was a bad employee. It claims his research on global warming probably wasn't up to par and that is supported by a number of active climate researchers and climatologists.
NASA's Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist, deconstructs Dr. Carlins study here:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
"First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That’s not necessarily a problem – perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? – but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don’t know is a leading light of the Friends of Science – a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken’s rambling magnum opus on the FoS site."
There is much more to the article and the large amount of comments are an interesting read too.
-
-
wp
-
July 7 (Bloomberg) -- The layer of ice over the Arctic Ocean has thinned “dramatically” this decade, with its thin seasonal blanket for the first time making up a bigger portion of the total ice than the thicker, older coat, a study said.
[...]
The amount of ice replaced in the winter hasn’t been enough in recent years to compensate for the loss in the summer, which leads to more open water, which in turn absorbs heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice, the researchers said.
“Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage,” the study’s lead researcher, Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, said in a statement.
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aZSiubM0Wkgg-
This is false.
Just read these articles...
"ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast."
www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
This is the only version of this I could find.
icecap.us/images/uploads/The_Ice_Caps_are_Growing.pdf
And this opinion piece makes a lot of sense.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/271218 -
So what you're saying is Antarctica moved to the northern hemisphere and is now in the Arctic Ocean? The problem is more serious than anyone could have imagined!!! Run away!!! Run away!!!
-
It is so bad that now Australia is an island...
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
