Related story:
Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management
by Richard Morrison, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.
The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.
The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.
“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.
Read the censored report here:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 1Y0-A17 questions and 642-456 lab tutorials to practice and pass 1Y0-A08 certification exam on first try.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
evanmjones (21:33:19)
Having just spent $3,000 this month to get my teeth fixed, I am not that convinced that Americans have better teeth than before the introduction of Flouridation. If so, then Dentists would be obsolete today.
LOL – sometimes the old jokes may have some truth behind them.
Hank (21:31:42) :
This is a no lose deal for the EPA. If the initiative fails, who’s going to get more budget items for further study?
————————————
I disagree. This could be a public relations disaster for the EPA. If they are seen to be forcing dubious science from the UN down the throats of the American public, they will become a target for ridicule. There is nothing that frightens bureacrats more than that. It means that not only their funding is in jeopardy, but their mandate as well.
The report (Proposed NCEE Comments) is very well-written considering the haste the author(s) was (were) operating under. However, I was disappointed in the brevity of the section that dealt with “endangerment.”
That section (pages 64 through 66) lists increasing crop yields over the last 30 years, declining heat-related mortality, improving air quality, and increasing life expectancy as indicators of the lack of adverse impacts of alleged human-induced “climate changes.”
That list is far too short and understated. The BENEFITS of global warming over the last 30 years also include: longer growing seasons, more rain, increased agricultural productivity, increased biological productivity of all kinds, increased biodiversity, expanding populations of so-called endangered species (such as polar bears), reduced poverty, famine, and disease, and a host of other positives associated with a warmer planet.
The EPA action to regulate CO2 is based on two assumptions, first that CO2 causes global warming and second that warming has negative impacts to Humanity and Nature. The latter is the so-called “endangerment.” Neither assumption is proved; in fact both are demonstrably false. WUWT has concentrated on the former, but the latter is equally important to refuting and contravening the EPA’s proposed regulatory action.
Perhaps we need to invent the “Scientific Quality Tooth Index Factor (SQTIF)” as an indication of what to expect from a report on the subject of climate.
The more fillings in your mouth, the higher your SQTIF score will be.
Now compare this with the official EPA criteria for scientific research…
Which is the better indicator of quality data gathering and analysis?
I think many underestimate the significance of this blog. Even those of us who post here.
If we don’t accept science by consensus for AGW, we should not accept it for anything else. Rather we should go by the preponderance of the evidence. The wording is unfortunate.
WOW. Someone in the class was PAYING ATTENTION. That is one fine report, even if not as polished as the author wanted it to be. All that in just a few days? You’re HIRED. Class dismissed!
Question… What were the other 16,999 people at EPA doing while this guy was doing all the work? Sounds like we could chop it 90% and not miss a thing.
I never saw the chart reconstructing sunspots from temperature alone before, nice work Anthony! Hmm, which is better, that one, or CO2 vs Temp? Oh, wait, I’ll ask the consensus…
I wrote my supreme leaders again tonight, now moving on to the media.
CarbonGate? Seriously?
Come on, guys. Tacking “gate” to the end of anything potentially scandalous is so 35 years ago. It’s crying wolf & overused. We’re practically begging for the average citizen to ignore it completely, and that’s exactly who we’re trying to reach here. Otherwise, this is just preaching to the choir.
While I appreciate the efforts of all involved here — and believe me, I do — and while I sincerely hope this has legs to at least postpone this nonsense until Copenhagen, it doesn’t have much potential beyond that. It may buy us a few more months, which I’m all for, but we need to accept reality for what it is and focus on combating that reality.
Who controls the four branches of government right now, media being the fourth? That’s right. We have little voice outside of the internet. Sure, we can act through our elected representatives on Waxman-Markey (just did so myself, thank you for the link) and flood the phone lines & e-mail inboxes to push this back, but that’s about it. It’s going to keep rearing its ugly head over & over again until we lose.
We have to take over. CarbonGate isn’t going to get the attention of the audience we need to lure in, namely average people who just read the newspaper & accept it as the gospel truth.
There aren’t going to be any Congressional hearings on this. This isn’t comparable to Watergate. There is no Woodward, no Bernstein, and no Deep Throat. And even if there were, the media wouldn’t cover it.
Which is why we have to become the new media, especially while the current media is struggling to survive. Not just individual sites like WUWT, but a virtual intranet within the internet.
Start thinking outside the box, people. Think big. Think outside the box. I’ve read enough here to know what audience I’m talking to. This isn’t some blog with uneducated people chiming in with stupid, uninformed comments. We’re fully capable of completely dismantling the 4th branch of government that continues to prop up this theory despite the fact that there is little scientific evidence left to support it. And that’s what it’s going to take if we want to prevent this travesty of “science.”
I’m off my soapbox now, but somebody’s gotta say this. May as well be me. We have to start catering to an audience outside of ourselves.
Question: What type of thermometer would have been available in 1859?
A Seemans Drug store (the oldest in Calif.) was reported in our newpaper to have recorded temps of 103, 106 & 105 for June 21st – 23rd of that year.
The 22nd breaks the alltime record with the other two right behind it.
Cost would not have been a factor: the place was awash in gold.
What would that instrument have been and what would it’s accuracy be?
REPLY: probably one of these
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Oldthermometers.jpg
But exposure was the issue. The Stevenson Screen was not really put into standardization until after the US Weather Bureau was created by an act of Congress in 1892. Prior to that, a wide variety of exposure techniques were used, including north walls of building and under trees, plus some early types of shelters/ If you look at graphs of temp data from the late 19th century is GISS next to early 20th century, you’ll often see a “settling down” of the signal as standard exposure techniques were put into use. Can’t say how accurately the thermometer at Seemans was exposed, but the mercury in glass units of the era should be about +/- 1 to 2 degrees F worst case, some were better. – Anthony
Note that this has been around in previous incarnations since 2007. And the EPA didn’t have time to address these issues? Not enough time? What were they DOING with it?
Having just spent $3,000 this month to get my teeth fixed, I am not that convinced that Americans have better teeth than before the introduction of Flouridation. If so, then Dentists would be obsolete today.
That doesn’t follow. (And, anyway, we do.)
Jeff Alberts (22:04:15) I, too was suprised at the use of the ‘c’ word, seems very inappropriate.
Keep up the ood work Anthony and crew!
How the IPCC came into being:
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/
Michelle Malkin is all over this. I sent it to Beck and Drudge.
I think it’s only a matter of time before they pick it up.
Carbongate….perfect!
http://michellemalkin.com/
Just Want Results… (21:25:47)
We shall see what we shall see. Gave Drudge another suggestion with multiple links to show him how the story’s developing. Let’s see if Drudge offers up a Carbongate story…
Leon Brozyna (22:27:35) :
I don’t think he shies away from a hot story. I fact I think he would love to be the one who breaks the story open. It wouldn’t be the first time he has done such.
Now Obama is being brought to rescue the bill… considering that all his economic plan hinges on getting the carbon tax revenues, it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Dictatorship or democracy? We’ll soon find out.
” Just Want Results… (22:39:01) : …a hot story.”
correction :
I meant a hot potato story
I sent it to them too, and Steve Milloy, Rush, Sean, Marc… Who else?
Stay up tonight for a while folks, we need to bury these people in emails. This is a good story, and for heaven’s sake, if the elected officials can’t even read the 1200 page bill, maybe they’ll finally skim 98 pages of evidence against it.
AE: Probably 100% spot on… but weather/climate (There is a La nina developing but temps are still falling!), will demolish it eventually.. then the lawyers will be sought LOL. My impression is that the news is slowly but surely embeding people because they ain’t seen any warming!
The fact is, as AE commented above, we are preaching to the converted… but the fact remains that this site is “the best Science Blog” run my meteorologists etc, this will eventually win the day.
Love to be a fly on the wall over at Gavin Schmidt office. He must be pulling his hair out about now!
The story here is that the EPA is attempting to shove bad science from the shadowy depths of unaccountable ad hoc United Nations organizations down the throats of the American people; and that the EPA, an agency of the government of the United States, is complicit in this demonstrably unscientific force-feeding.
Speaking of preaching to the converted….
This is the kind of mindset we are up against. This comment by the troll known as dhogaza was left on Joe Romm’s climate progress tonight:
dhogaza Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
What is more likely to drive global warming or climate change: 1) small variations in our sun, which provides 100 percent of our planet’s energy budget, or 2) large variations in carbon dioxide, an infinitesimally small trace gas in our atmosphere essential to photosynthesis?
Well, Jim Gordon, what’s more likely to kill you:
1. a small variation of our sun or
2. Exposure to sarin at a level of 0.1 ppm, about 1/3000th the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Please don’t come back until *after* you’ve tried the experiment.
=========
This is the comment that earned the unbelievably vile response from dhogaza
Jim Gordon Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I know a great deal about science and the physics of global warming or climate change or whatever the political-science spin doctors are calling it this week. Let me ask a common-sense question with the help from a little elementary school earth science:
What is more likely to drive global warming or climate change: 1) small variations in our sun, which provides 100 percent of our planet’s energy budget, or 2) large variations in carbon dioxide, an infinitesimally small trace gas in our atmosphere essential to photosynthesis? Many might say the debate is over now that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has covered all the relevant science. I would then ask, Have you read the IPCC technical reports? I would be very surprised to find anyone how has read any of them in-depth.
What readers will find are a number of interesting facts and obvious omissions, one of which is a clear statement that the IPCC does not begin to understand all of the factors affecting our climate, including solar dynamics and cloud cover. The IPCC notes that the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with many other atmospheric trace gases, including water vapor.
Some facts they don’t publish are: 1) Doubling carbon dioxide concentrations increases plant growth by 33 percent, good news for farmers and foresters, 2) warming stimulates plant growth and on balance is good for the economy and society, and 3) humans are only responsible for 3 percent of all carbon dioxide escaping into the atmosphere. Therefore carbon cap-and-trade fees and carbon-offset taxes would have to be enormous and draconian to have any significant impact on the planet’s carbon dioxide.
When all is said and done, the underlying reality is that nothing has done more to make our planet green over the past several decades than moderate sun-driven warming together with elevated levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of the source.
The most disturbing question is: Why is our government spending so much national treasure to convince us that 1) warming is bad when it is not, 2) carbon dioxide is largely responsible for warming when it is not, and 3) people are largely responsible for carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere when they are not?
==========
“dhogaza” rules the roost at Romm’s and most of the time at RC, unfettered.
This is the face of climate change proponents today.
Give him no quarter.
They are soooo dim. Too dim even to come up with pap responses off Grist.
How dumb is THAT?
As Eisenhower once put it: “They’re thin, boys. As thin as piss on a hot rock.”
Or as per Lincoln: “Like the homeopathic soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death.”