E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

Looks like we have some of that 'change' Obama promised. Instead of supressing Pro-Climate-Change information, we're now supressing Anti-Climate-Change information.

From one end of the spectrum to the other. :(

Looks like we have another idiot who believes that just because the EPA is a government agency that Obama is kept informed about every littlke thing concerning EVERY government agency.

Plus did you actually read the article......hmmmm
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: XZeroII
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

Looks like we have some of that 'change' Obama promised. Instead of supressing Pro-Climate-Change information, we're now supressing Anti-Climate-Change information.

From one end of the spectrum to the other. :(

Looks like we have another idiot who believes that just because the EPA is a government agency that Obama is kept informed about every littlke thing concerning EVERY government agency.

Plus did you actually read the article......hmmmm

Bush apparently personally ran every aspect of this country based on how peope have been reacting to news like this for years. Why would Obama be any different?

Yes, I did read the article. Would it trouble you too much to explain why you felt so compelled to ask?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I don't pretend to understand the internal politics of the EPA, however I'd like to see gov't agencies in general as apolitical as possible. So if this is true, and there is some pressure from the WH on this, I'd have to say this really sucks and doesn't bode well at all.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
1
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't pretend to understand the internal politics of the EPA, however I'd like to see gov't agencies in general as apolitical as possible. So if this is true, and there is some pressure from the WH on this, I'd have to say this really sucks and doesn't bode well at all.

Th real question is why he wrote the report. Government employees can't just write reports for publication on a whim about any topic they want. It could very well have been a situation where someone just wrote a report on a topic that they have no real standing to write on.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
I've done a little checking around :D

Politics can be an ugly thing. As a 'professional' with the EPA this individual has to weigh his own bias with the objectives of the new administration. With that said I give you this link from the author of the report (from his own web site) ...

But particularly in today's economy, I am concerned about the price tag of meeting growing environmental demands ....

I have concluded we must redouble our efforts to find and apply more cost effective approaches, to engage in negotiations and voluntary agreements to cut pollution, to foster breakthroughs in cleanup technologies, and to explore new ways to finance environmental
improvements.

One promising approach to making environmental protection more efficient is to craft incentives that harness the marketplace on behalf of the environment. Using a combination of incentives and vigorous enforcement of existing laws, we can engage the marketplace to deal effectively with the subtle and complex environmental problems ....

A good example of this approach is the system of economic incentives proposed by President Bush to curb acid rain, which were passed by the 101st Congress in the new Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Under this system, electric utilities will be given a limited number of marketable permits designed to reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions by about half.



So.

In November of 1990 this gentleman supports a 'cap and trade' for SO2 that has resulted in a 50%+ reduction to date with a projected reduction of 75% by 2015 (*.xls).

And the actual cost of the SO2 'cap and trade' program is 25% of the 1990 projections.

So, again ...

The SCOTUS finds that CO2 shall be regulated by the EPA, a new President comes into office and a Nixon appointee who supported 'cap and trade' for SO2 does not support 'cap and trade' for CO2.

Is this a great country or what ? :laugh:





 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
"may have suppressed"

and

"My personal view"


So they might have surpressed someones personal view. Yea lets sound the alarms for that. Someone call FAUX!!!


I work for State dept, my personal view may be something and I bring it up and no one listens and they tell me to do my job. Is it being surpressed or is State dept telling me to shut up and do my job not bring my personal opinion into something that is not my job?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I thought Obama was going to fix these problems...
Indeed, Obama was supposed to have fixed every problem after the first 6 months.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,916
47,784
136
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Honestly, having read the first few pages of his paper, I think he raises some interesting points. I don't know whether they're valid, but I think it would have been appropriate for the EPA to address them, both in the spirit of transparency and to demonstrate that we've moved beyond the blatant politicization of science of the Bush administration. Ultimately, Science needs to be about the search for truth, regardless of where it take us.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,709
11
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

He has a degree in physics as well.

He was commenting on the cost effectiveness of limiting global warming via CO2 caps.

Basically his argument is this:

It seems like global warming might not be happening, as there are plenty of pieces of evidence which contradict the models. Given this, is it wise to blow a metric fuckton of money on measures which we don't even know will work? Furthermore, if we do decide that cooling the earth is something we want to do, there are cheaper and more effective ways of doing it than a CO2 cap and trade.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

He has a degree in physics as well.

He was commenting on the cost effectiveness of limiting global warming via CO2 caps.

Basically his argument is this:

It seems like global warming might not be happening, as there are plenty of pieces of evidence which contradict the models. Given this, is it wise to blow a metric fuckton of money on measures which we don't even know will work? Furthermore, if we do decide that cooling the earth is something we want to do, there are cheaper and more effective ways of doing it than a CO2 cap and trade.

Yes, it is wise, it's called hedging your bets.

A degree in physics does not make you immune to pressure, or stupidity.

 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.
Tell me o wise one...is he factually wrong?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
So...here we have it...evidence that a critical assumption regarding water vapor feedback used in the GCM models is bogus. Evidence that a critical data used to "poo poo" the effects of solar variability was also bogus. CERN states that solar/cosmic ray forcing is a major driver of climate change. Global temperatures have declined significantly and the IPCC temperature projections are proven to be bogus. The IPCC using bogus land surface temperature data instead of more accurate satellite temperate data. Previous consensus on global warming causing increased hurricane activity proven bogus. Numerous major inconsistencies in MMGW theory remain unaddressed.

Holy shit Batman! Perhaps we should let science run it's course for a few more years and figure out what's actually going on before making any rash decisions. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the subject of global warming actually take the time to read this paper.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

He has a degree in physics as well.

He was commenting on the cost effectiveness of limiting global warming via CO2 caps.

Basically his argument is this:

It seems like global warming might not be happening, as there are plenty of pieces of evidence which contradict the models. Given this, is it wise to blow a metric fuckton of money on measures which we don't even know will work? Furthermore, if we do decide that cooling the earth is something we want to do, there are cheaper and more effective ways of doing it than a CO2 cap and trade.

Yes, it is wise, it's called hedging your bets.

A degree in physics does not make you immune to pressure, or stupidity.

In other words, bet against the evidence?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
So...here we have it...evidence that a critical assumption regarding water vapor feedback used in the GCM models is bogus. Evidence that a critical data used to "poo poo" the effects of solar variability was also bogus. CERN states that solar/cosmic ray forcing is a major driver of climate change. Global temperatures have declined significantly and the IPCC temperature projections are proven to be bogus. The IPCC using bogus land surface temperature data instead of more accurate satellite temperate data. Previous consensus on global warming causing increased hurricane activity proven bogus. Numerous major inconsistencies in MMGW theory remain unaddressed.

Holy shit Batman! Perhaps we should let science run it's course for a few more years and figure out what's actually going on before making any rash decisions. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the subject of global warming actually take the time to read this paper.
This is where you guys fail, and it's exactly why I wish the EPA had considered and addressed Carlin's report. The problem we have here is we have one person offering his opinions on scientific findings and the processes used by the EPA. Everybody has opinions, but because his match your preconceived ideological biases, you trumpet his as fact while ignoring the opinions of countless others who are equally, and often far better qualified. Do you truly fail to understand that other researchers and climatologists have written thousands of pages of their own reports contradicting Carlin?

That doesn't mean Carlin is wrong on all counts, but it's fallacious to assume he is right, and downright foolish to assert he is somehow the final word on the subject. Instead, had the EPA directly addressed Carlin's musings, we might have a better understanding of where and how he's completely missed the boat ... and where he's raised points that deserve further consideration.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
So...here we have it...evidence that a critical assumption regarding water vapor feedback used in the GCM models is bogus. Evidence that a critical data used to "poo poo" the effects of solar variability was also bogus. CERN states that solar/cosmic ray forcing is a major driver of climate change. Global temperatures have declined significantly and the IPCC temperature projections are proven to be bogus. The IPCC using bogus land surface temperature data instead of more accurate satellite temperate data. Previous consensus on global warming causing increased hurricane activity proven bogus. Numerous major inconsistencies in MMGW theory remain unaddressed.

Holy shit Batman! Perhaps we should let science run it's course for a few more years and figure out what's actually going on before making any rash decisions. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the subject of global warming actually take the time to read this paper.
This is where you guys fail, and it's exactly why I wish the EPA had considered and addressed Carlin's report. The problem we have here is we have one person offering his opinions on scientific findings and the processes used by the EPA. Everybody has opinions, but because his match your preconceived ideological biases, you trumpet his as fact while ignoring the opinions of countless others who are equally, and often far better qualified. Do you truly fail to understand that other researchers and climatologists have written thousands of pages of their own reports contradicting Carlin?

That doesn't mean Carlin is wrong on all counts, but it's fallacious to assume he is right, and downright foolish to assert he is somehow the final word on the subject. Instead, had the EPA directly addressed Carlin's musings, we might have a better understanding of where and how he's completely missed the boat ... and where he's raised points that deserve further consideration.
I NEVER asserted that Carlin is somehow the final word on this subject...please don't make up shit I never said...I guess that's where guys like you fail.

Carlin is merely pointing to evidence that the IPCC "consensus opinion" is potentially flawed on many levels and that the EPA needs to independently revisit the subject based on recent scientific findings. For crying out loud...all he's asking is that the EPA objectively look at the science and draw their own conclusions instead of taking the IPCC's dated opinion as gospel.

The paper brings up some very valid points...and I would hope that anyone who's interested in global warming science would want to be aware of these points. The argument for a significant solar/climate link is incredibly compelling as illustrated in the paper and current research is now showing that solar/cosmic ray forcing is a major driver of climate change. The current IPCC MMGW theory is in trouble...deep trouble.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
So...here we have it...evidence that a critical assumption regarding water vapor feedback used in the GCM models is bogus. Evidence that a critical data used to "poo poo" the effects of solar variability was also bogus. CERN states that solar/cosmic ray forcing is a major driver of climate change. Global temperatures have declined significantly and the IPCC temperature projections are proven to be bogus. The IPCC using bogus land surface temperature data instead of more accurate satellite temperate data. Previous consensus on global warming causing increased hurricane activity proven bogus. Numerous major inconsistencies in MMGW theory remain unaddressed.

Holy shit Batman! Perhaps we should let science run it's course for a few more years and figure out what's actually going on before making any rash decisions. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the subject of global warming actually take the time to read this paper.
This is where you guys fail, and it's exactly why I wish the EPA had considered and addressed Carlin's report. The problem we have here is we have one person offering his opinions on scientific findings and the processes used by the EPA. Everybody has opinions, but because his match your preconceived ideological biases, you trumpet his as fact while ignoring the opinions of countless others who are equally, and often far better qualified. Do you truly fail to understand that other researchers and climatologists have written thousands of pages of their own reports contradicting Carlin?

That doesn't mean Carlin is wrong on all counts, but it's fallacious to assume he is right, and downright foolish to assert he is somehow the final word on the subject. Instead, had the EPA directly addressed Carlin's musings, we might have a better understanding of where and how he's completely missed the boat ... and where he's raised points that deserve further consideration.
I NEVER asserted that Carlin is somehow the final word on this subject...please don't make up shit I never said...I guess that's where guys like you fail.
Really? Your repeated use of the word "proven," as well as multiple statements that "xyz IS bogus" suggest otherwise. Your post certainly treats Carlin's opinions as the last word. Perhaps that's simply overzealous hyperbole on your part, but it's not me putting words in your mouth.


Carlin is merely pointing to evidence that the IPCC "consensus opinion" is potentially flawed on many levels and that the EPA needs to independently revisit the subject based on recent scientific findings. For crying out loud...all he's asking is that the EPA objectively look at the science and draw their own conclusions instead of taking the IPCC's dated opinion as gospel.

The paper brings up some very valid points...and I would hope that anyone who's interested in global warming science would want to be aware of these points. The argument for a significant solar/climate link is incredibly compelling as illustrated in the paper and current research is now showing that solar/cosmic ray forcing is a major driver of climate change. The current IPCC MMGW theory is in trouble...deep trouble.
Which is pretty much what I said. That's a much more reasoned response than your initial post, don't you think?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
So...here we have it...evidence that a critical assumption regarding water vapor feedback used in the GCM models is bogus. Evidence that a critical data used to "poo poo" the effects of solar variability was also bogus. CERN states that solar/cosmic ray forcing is a major driver of climate change. Global temperatures have declined significantly and the IPCC temperature projections are proven to be bogus. The IPCC using bogus land surface temperature data instead of more accurate satellite temperate data. Previous consensus on global warming causing increased hurricane activity proven bogus. Numerous major inconsistencies in MMGW theory remain unaddressed.

Holy shit Batman! Perhaps we should let science run it's course for a few more years and figure out what's actually going on before making any rash decisions. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the subject of global warming actually take the time to read this paper.
This is where you guys fail, and it's exactly why I wish the EPA had considered and addressed Carlin's report. The problem we have here is we have one person offering his opinions on scientific findings and the processes used by the EPA. Everybody has opinions, but because his match your preconceived ideological biases, you trumpet his as fact while ignoring the opinions of countless others who are equally, and often far better qualified. Do you truly fail to understand that other researchers and climatologists have written thousands of pages of their own reports contradicting Carlin?

That doesn't mean Carlin is wrong on all counts, but it's fallacious to assume he is right, and downright foolish to assert he is somehow the final word on the subject. Instead, had the EPA directly addressed Carlin's musings, we might have a better understanding of where and how he's completely missed the boat ... and where he's raised points that deserve further consideration.
I NEVER asserted that Carlin is somehow the final word on this subject...please don't make up shit I never said...I guess that's where guys like you fail.
Really? Your repeated use of the word "proven," as well as multiple statements that "xyz IS bogus" suggest otherwise. Your post certainly treats Carlin's opinions as the last word. Perhaps that's simply overzealous hyperbole on your part, but it's not me putting words in your mouth.


Carlin is merely pointing to evidence that the IPCC "consensus opinion" is potentially flawed on many levels and that the EPA needs to independently revisit the subject based on recent scientific findings. For crying out loud...all he's asking is that the EPA objectively look at the science and draw their own conclusions instead of taking the IPCC's dated opinion as gospel.

The paper brings up some very valid points...and I would hope that anyone who's interested in global warming science would want to be aware of these points. The argument for a significant solar/climate link is incredibly compelling as illustrated in the paper and current research is now showing that solar/cosmic ray forcing is a major driver of climate change. The current IPCC MMGW theory is in trouble...deep trouble.
Which is pretty much what I said. That's a much more reasoned response than your initial post, don't you think?
I stand by my statements and the use of the words "proven" and "bogus". Pick one and let's discuss.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Did you read the report that was "suppressed?" It's a joke. The guy quotes national review and global warming denier think tanks in the report. It's a piece of politically driven garbage, he should be fired if that's the quality of work he's paid to deliver.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
You can not make any kind of real reduction of Carbon in a short period of time because it takes 100 times longer to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere than it does to create it. Some carbon is added just by using fertilizer.

http://www.everything2.com/ind...arming&lastnode_id=124

Carbon Molecules stay in the air for about 100 years!

http://www.everything2.com/ind...=1690658&lastnode_id=0

What caused the Last Ice Age with no Human intervention?

I dont think O'Bamma or the EPA know what they are doing.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

He has a degree in physics as well.

He was commenting on the cost effectiveness of limiting global warming via CO2 caps.

Basically his argument is this:

It seems like global warming might not be happening, as there are plenty of pieces of evidence which contradict the models. Given this, is it wise to blow a metric fuckton of money on measures which we don't even know will work? Furthermore, if we do decide that cooling the earth is something we want to do, there are cheaper and more effective ways of doing it than a CO2 cap and trade.

Yes, it is wise, it's called hedging your bets.

A degree in physics does not make you immune to pressure, or stupidity.

You understand that blowing all that money costs us right, it is the idea of opportunity costs. With that money we could fund cancer research, aids research, or any other number of things that we know could save lives. And when we are talking about the huge amount of money we may need to spend to control emissions, that causes a huge impact on peoples livelihoods. When you reduce income, life expectancies decrease. In effect, you shorten people's lives. I wish people understood that money is not something you can throw at a problem, it costs us things somewhere else.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
Doc - cut the 'I'm smarter than you guys' attitude, and do a little reading yourself. Much of the anti-GW spew you just put out there is either false or quite misleading.

Piasabird - what does the last ice age have to do with anything? No one should disagree that the earth goes through natural climate cycles - the difference now is the 'natural' part.

Global warming or no global warming - what is the harm in converting our automobile 'fleet' to less gas-consuming, less-pollution emitting vehicles? Even if you don't think man is contributing to climate change, does that also mean you don't think air quality matters? Do you think it's ok for us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars buying oil from countries that for the most part hate us?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

actually, assuming he was deeply into econometrics, he'd be very well qualified to consider the regressions needed to analyze the huge multivariable functions that describe the climate.

statisticians are the same way.

analysis of mathematics (which is really all this stuff is) isn't limited to one field.