Comments for Obama's EPA Quashes Climate Change Science »
Posted By zaph22 5 months, 4 weeks ago in Political NewsThe Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.
Read Full Story at powerlineblog.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 46
-
-
-
100%
vettenut5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Does the term "ostrich" have any connotation to you in this matter, Dio?
Reply
After all, the article was quite clear on what was being suppressed..........
"There is none so blind as he who will not see........"
--from the song "Everything's Beautiful" sung by B.J. Thomas-
80%
djn3nunez35 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Neither John Carlin nor John Davidson, the two authors of the draft that never found its way into the published EPA report, are climate scientists but rather economists. I've read their draft, and it regurgitates many of the climate myths that abound on the Internet but have been refuted by data in the climatology and geophysics literature. In contrast, the published EPA report was drafted by a group that include expert climatologists.
Reply
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evid...
Wouldn’t it be terrible if the Obama administration turned out to be manipulating science to fit its own ideology? Especially after Obama declared, to much fanfare, that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over”?
Yeah, that would make a helluva story: “Look, the new guy is just like the old guy!”
Well yeah, but it hasn’t happened yet, at least not in the way the Competitive Enterprise Institute claims in a release it sent this morning under the headline “BREAKING: EPA Suppresses Internal Global Warming Study.”
The free-market think tank, which has a history of intellectually hi-larious denialism, says the “Environment (sic) Protection Agency” silenced an internal dissenter in the course of its endangerment finding, a process that concluded in April that greenhouse-gases threaten public health and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
According to CEI, the dissenter wanted to include “a significant internal critique of the agency’s global warming position” but was stifled because the report didn’t fit the political conclusion the EPA had already reached. The group published four EPA emails as evidence of political maneuvering within the agency.
And what do the emails reveal? That there’s nothing to this story. An EPA economist wanted to give scientific opinion, which wasn’t accepted—most likely because it’s outside his area of expertise and training.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Zaph:
Reply
I read the report; most of it was over my head.
But I did find this article that refutes it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...
This is over my head too.
So I did some dumb carpenter math.
If my figuring is correct…the average amount per person of oil burned in this country is enough to bring 31,111 gallons of water from 68 degrees to boiling each day.
Or enough to boil a pool 25’x 25’ x 6’-6” per person.-
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Barrels per day………………20,000,000
Reply
BTU's per Barrel………………5,600,000
BTU's per day………112,000,000,000,000
Population………………………3,000,000
BTU's Per person per day……….37,333,333
Cubic feet per day per person @ 1 degree… 597,333
212 degrees - 68 degrees
Cubic feet per day per person brought from 68 degrees to boiling point
4,148
Size of pool 25' x 25' x 6'-6"
Gallons in the pool 31,111
Pounds of CO2 per billion BTU of energy:
Coal……………. 208,000 pounds
Oil………………164,000 pounds
Natural Gas………………117,000 pounds
United States — Area: 9,161,923 SQ KM
9,184,000-tons of CO2 per day from oil only.
There are 8.741 scf in one pound of CO2
1 square kilometers = 10,763,910.4 square foot
Now my figuring could be wrong…but I figure we lay a 1/64”+ blanket of Co2 over this country each day. Or in a Euclidian world it would be a little thicker than 7” over the course of a year.
Now that does not take into account cows farting, or burning coal, I believe we burn and fart enough to contribute a measurable amount.-
-
100%
nostalgia5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Even IPCC knows it's a sham
Reply
By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature “savings” of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.” Under the IPCC’s high-emissions scenario, instead of a projected rise of 4.414ºC, Waxman-Markey limits the rise to 4.219ºC—a “savings” of 0.195ºC. In either case, this works out to about 5 years’ worth of warming. In other words, a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect.
The total increase in China’s emissions since the year 2000 is 50 percent greater than the total increase from rest of the world combined and is growing by leaps and bounds. And consider that India carbon dioxide emissions haven’t started to dramatically increase yet. But it is poised to do so, and an Indian official recently stated that “It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce [carbon dioxide emissions] when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity.”
Without a large reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from both China and India—not just a commitment but an actual reduction—there will be nothing climatologically gained from any restrictions on U.S. emissions, regardless whether they come about from the Waxman-Markey bill (or other cap-and-trade proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulations.
http://masterresource.org/?p=2355-
100%
nostalgia5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then read what OMB said about regulating greenhouse gases - is it something we really what to do in a recession?
Reply
Republicans Pounce on OMB Memo
Republicans pounced Tuesday on a White House document that said regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act “is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”
The document, a combination of government agencies’ comments that the Office of Management and Budget sent the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, presents a grim view of the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
Asked about the memo at a Senate hearing Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson emphasized that the agency’s declaration is preliminary and might not lead to regulations. She reiterated the administration’s preference for legislation such as Rep. Henry Waxman’s plan to cap and gradually reduce emissions, while allowing companies to buy and sell emissions permits.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/12/republica...
-
-
Neutral
Georgia505 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the stat liberals need to explain. Al Gore made this very point.
Reply
US population as percentage of world population: 3%
US energy consumption as perc. of world consumption: 25%
All well and good until we consider:
US GDP as percentage of global GDP: 75%
So, liberals, how is it that Americans use only 25% of the world's energy to produce 75% of the world's GDP, yet the rest of the world, 97% of earth's population, is so utterly wasteful and inefficient that it can produce only 25% of the world's GDP from 75% of the world's energy?
If you liberals had a clue and a brain cell to go with, it would be eminently clear that the surest, best path to efficient utilization of the earth's resources is whatever in the hell America is doing right.
Oh wait. That can't possibly be the answer. You hate America.
Bumpersnicker:
"P--- Off A Liberal - Celebrate the Fourth of July!"-
100%
bluetexasvalley5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If I understood your comment correctly, you're saying that the U.S. has "bought" the right to have the world's largest energy consumption.
Reply
So it would follow that the U.S.'s largest energy consumers should "pay" for that right, too. Am I correct? -
100%
Tangent0015 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, no. The US accounts for 20% of the world GDP, second, actually, to the EU.
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_... -
-
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And even if we don’t…so what!..we are the 3rd largest oil producer in the world yet we import more than ½ of it. (More than 52% of the mining and petroleum interests in this country are foreign owned) Most of the countries we get it from get a huge percentage of their revenue from our pockets. And I would hardly call them friends.
Reply
I find it strange that we have seen a more than doubling the cost of this energy lately, and for some reason folks do not peg that cost as one of the things that has brought down this economy. Yet the folks that are silent… holler… that making significant steps away from our dependence on fossil fuels will wreck our economy.-
67%
mesodude5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The energy and oil lobbies are spending some BIG bucks to keep the goodies they got from GW and the GOP all these years. It's not a coincidence that energy and healthcare costs jacked up sky high after lobbyists realized the GOP was imploding. They had to get their rainy day fund together.
Reply-
100%
nostalgia5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those evil lobbyists - just like this one
Reply
Obama aide's husband lobbied for oil drilling
When President Barack Obama named Florida native Carol Browner the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, groups opposed to oil drilling in the waters off Florida rejoiced.
But Browner's role as Obama's top adviser on major environmental issues could be clouded by her husband's past job as chief lobbyist for the group behind the latest push for more oil drilling off Florida's coast.
Thomas Downey, Browner's husband, was the lead lobbyist last year for Securing America's Future Energy, which paid Downey's firm about $150,000 in 2008. Over three years, SAFE has paid Downey's firm about $330,000, lobbying records show.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090628/ARTI...
-
-
-
100%
nostalgia5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fly
Reply
Read his report - you can get to it from his web page
http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/
Here is Carlin's educational background:
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
-
-
-
67%
k9kssr5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I watched a video of one of my congressmen today. He's very upset that this study, showing global warming is a myth, has been withheld by the EPA. People ought to be able to hear both sides of an argument. He's mad as hell and he ain't gonna take it. Even the sole dem from my state voted against the climate change bill.
Reply
I'm all for conservation, developing alternative energy sources, and kicking our dependence on foreign oil, but how does the climate change bill help?-
-
50%
QuailMan5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This study doesn't show global warming to be a myth. It simply shows that CO2 is not the sole, determining factor in the increase of temperatures worldwide.
Reply
Global warming is an empirically measured, statistically proven fact. The earth is heating up. The question is not whether it is, but why it is.
As someone who has been a student and researcher in geophysics since pre-Inconvenient Truth days, I find statements like yours troubling. I understand there are many sources of material out there with many different and opposing viewpoints, but it takes little reason or sense to compare temperature data from the past with that of the present. And, unlike ten years ago, you can now even see the effects. Look at the readily visible examples of the receding Arctic and Antarctic ice fields.
And, as a final note, CO2 has long been low on the list of global warming factors. This report adds almost nothing to any kind of discussion, other than an opportunity to dismiss the issue entirely.-
100%
nostalgia5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
20 March 2003
Reply
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.
Willson said the Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods.
Confounding efforts to determine the Sun's role is the fact that its energy output waxes and wanes every 11 years. This solar cycle, as it is called, reached maximum in the middle of 2000 and achieved a second peak in 2002. It is now ramping down toward a solar minimum that will arrive in about three years.
Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?
Anne Minard
for National Geographic News
May 4, 2009
A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth's climate might respond.
The sun is the least active it's been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.
Actual report:
The over all experimental record is self-consistent. The Earth has
been warming as it re covers from the Little Ice Age at an average
rate of about 0.5 ºC per century. Fluctuations within this temperature
trend include periods of more rapid in crease and also periods of temperature
decrease. These fluctuations correlate well with concomitant
fluctuations in the activity of the sun. Neither the trends nor the fluctuations
within the trends correlate with hydrocarbon use. Sea level
and glacier length reveal three intermediate uptrends and two down -
trends since 1800, as does solar activity. These trends are climatically
benign and result from natural processes.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf -
-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So I can write a report regarding which direction my company should go, making wild claims that their market research and business analysis is way off base and expect the board of directors to take it seriously? Hey, I took an Economics 101 class in College!
Reply
-
-
100%
dgoodii5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So the cap and trade bill is for purely power and control at the US Government level. Yet another grab of individual freedom and states rights. No true debate has or will take place on the subject, for there are countless variables and no true way to measure the impact of one at a time.
Reply
Temperature data is not accurate now and even less so in the past. The stations that measure temp are not all in the same type of structure or location.
What is the climate change on Mars and Venus, are two neighbors? The sun does have something to do with our climate always.
How do you account for the large volumes of gases spewed by the planet itself? They can not always be constant, they rise and fall, volcanoes erupt every second of the day. The planet has gone through hot and cold cycles in the past, with and without mankind present. Greenland is still covered in ice from the last ice age, so what is the correct temperature of the planet? Mankind can not be the key factor in what is right or wrong for the planet, we are but one of billions of life forms on Earth.-
100%
QuailMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Warning: Massive Post
Reply
"How do you account for the large volumes of gases spewed by the planet itself? They can not always be constant, they rise and fall, volcanoes erupt every second of the day. The planet has gone through hot and cold cycles in the past, with and without mankind present. Greenland is still covered in ice from the last ice age, so what is the correct temperature of the planet? Mankind can not be the key factor in what is right or wrong for the planet, we are but one of billions of life forms on Earth."
In case you misunderstood my previous statement, what you have just said here is a direct side effect to the point I (perhaps incoherently) was trying to convey. I feel the same way towards the recent trend of "solar cycle" arguments. How can you pin such a large phenomenon on a single cause? That was the immediate scientific response to the idea of CO2 being the main cause of global warming. Unfortunately, doomsday propositions are immediate attention grabbers and are guaranteed to attract some press, regardless of validity.
As to the question, "How can I possibly know what's normal?" I answer, I do not claim to. I do, however claim to have the ability to observe change and infer reasonable conclusions. For example, the fact that my surroundings are considerably warmer during the months of July and August than during January and February is, by itself, no major observation. However, after observing the same trend over the course of 25 years, I conclude that when December ends, my board shorts should long have been buried in the bottom of my dresser.
Why such an insipid example? Consider recent temperature trends as an application of the same (admittedly dull) logic. The only possible conclusion is that, within recent years (say, just the past 40, when accurate data is most available) the earth has warmed.
Just as I, having only been around 25 years, can't claim that it was never colder in August than in January, all of humankind, having only recorded its history accurately for, say 2700 years, can't claim to know what the earth looked like before that time. However, judging from the massive piles of snow and ice on the poles of our planet, along with a plethora of other geophysical data, we have come to the conclusion that, at some point, the earth was also covered with ice. -
100%
QuailMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...Continued...
Reply
So, back to the question. Which is normal: to have the earth covered with ice, or to have it near its current state? The answer, as best as science can determine at this point, is that the "normal" state of the earth is severe fluctuation between diverse poles. Where we stand in relation to those poles can not be determined absolutely, but the general consensus is that we are in, relatively speaking, a very mild climatological period. Whether we are destined to drastically swing towards one side or the other is as of yet unknown, as we simply lack the experiential material to make any kind of accurate prediction.
The real question of global warming, when you strip away all of the politics and media is this: "Have we as a species reached the point where we influence the condition of our planet more than other, terrestrial or non-terrestrial phenomena affect its condition?" However, it is easier to divide this into a political, party-line issue and point at charts of CO2 and methane output, so this is what we (at least so far) have done. No government agency will fund research that results in us being able to say, "Yes, we are affecting the planet." as it does not provide any reasonable application. But if they can say "Yes, we need to limit CO2 and methane emissions," it provides them with a solid, albeit bogus, selling point.
There is much more to say on this subject, but this is long enough for now. If you are genuinely interested in the study of warming, I would recommend wikipedia's page on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). It is well put together, but keep in mind some of the information presented there is based on predictions, as well. You should attempt to understand the model for these predictions, and not just the end result which is, by itself, meaningless. The solar flare cycle is also addressed there, if you are interested.
-
-
-
-
50%
mesodude5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow...Cons have really twisted up the anti-GW propaganda machine several notches in the last couple of months. There used to be a fake anti-gw story maybe once or twice per week. Now they're being paid to turn tricks for the energy companies by the hour. They've gone from crying that no one was paying attention to their bribed scientists to an all out fear n smear campaign. Just like the insurance lobby, they are terrified the GOP gravy train is a comin to a grinding halt. ;-(
Reply -
75%
Georgia505 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the two-part liberal paradigm at work here:
Reply
ANY use of the environment outside THEIR control is ipso facto abuse of the environment.
Any ABUSE of the environment by them is ipso facto responsible use of the environment.
Any exception to the above merely proves the rule. -
60%
THOMNH625 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it is very simple, man made global warming is a myth. in the 70,s it was man made global colling and the onset of another ice age, now it is the world is melting. man has no control over the sun it's solar storms or it's rotation in relationship to the earth.
Reply -
100%
Tangent0015 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, the authors of the report, Carlin and Davidson, are economists, not climatologists. The unsolicited report is largely a regurgitation of the same 'denier' arguments that have been floating around the web for the past few years.
Reply
In addition, it is untrue that the report was 'ignored', even though Carlin was apparently doing this work when he should have been busy at the job for which he was hired at the EPA.
“Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue,” said EPA spokesperson Adora Andy.
“Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”
The CEI claims Carlin's work shows the warming is due to solar and ocean cycles, but when asked to produce the data for review, their General Council's response was: “On the question of whether we have a copy of any version of the report—sorry, but at this time all I can say is no comment,” Kazman wrote in an email.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evid... -
-
-
100%
zaph225 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
kind of like when the planet began cooling a decade or so back the libs changed the name of the problem they wanted us to see, went from calling it global warming since that wasn't right, and started calling it climate change.
Reply
And back to an earlier post... "Neither John Carlin nor John Davidson, the two authors of the draft that never found its way into the published EPA report, are climate scientists" first that isn't true, but nice try, and even if it were true, is Al Gore a climate scientist? If not why believe a word he says on the subject? Since you clearly think only someone that is a climate scientist is someone to believe, and fortunately for the authors of this report, you were wrong about their credentials anyway.-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Al Gore is a spokesman, not a scientists, that is true. But the data he presents has been peer-reviewed and repeatedly confirmed by the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc.
Reply
Neither Carlin nor Davidson are climate scientists, nor have they provided any direct peer-reviewed data to support their assertions.
-
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.