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The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments.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.
To tallbloke,
quote away.
If people put material up on the open internet, it should be fair game to be linked to anywhere (especially if the author says otherwise).
Carbongate gets attention from CBS!
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml
Carbongate! I like it!
“Jail to the Chief!”
Ron de Haan (14:05:37) :
Carbongate gets attention from CBS!
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/
CBS, eh? Now the word is getting out. There is an interesting comment on the site by “csuhurricanedept” on June 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM PDT.
He/she denegrates Carlin by saying that he: “only has a bs in physics”. Now “csuhurricanedept” states that he/she has “dual degrees, my first being an ma in sociology with an emphasis on demography e.g. research methodology and the second an ms in gcec, global climate and environmental change. ”
It’s just a pity that he/she never learnt how to use capital letters or punctuation somewhere along the way…
Carbongate on tech board Slashdot: EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming
And has some interesting ad hominems on two people involved. Or one, if “not a scientist” doesn’t count.
Maybe “not a scientist” should not be uttered by people who use the IPCC’s non-peer-reviewed politically edited reports. Conan O’Brien has been doing messages from everyone on TV, where he makes a message using words clipped from many TV shows. Clipping bits from peer-reviewed material is not enough to call the result scientific.
bill (05:19:51) :
AnnaV said
“… in over a year that I have been following skeptic boards I think that everything scientific that can be said has been said and is published. It is just that AGWarmers have an agenda, which includes blinders and earplugs.”
The problem is Anna you too are blinkered and will not admit there may be some truth in AGW.
I am sorry, but admitting to something I have researched and do not believe in is not due to blinkers. As a physicist when I started reading the IPCC physics justification 800 pages I had no bias except surprise that such a small trace gas with such a tiny anthropogenic component could move the climate.
My opinion is a weighted by science opinion that the warming observed has a tiny influence from any anthropogenic gas contribution .( I should except H2O ofcourse, which has a large effect in regions with extensive irrigation, but that is not what we are talking about).
The global problem is not that this type of bills pass in western countries, I live in the EU and we have survived with the only effect being that Al Gore became richer by selling hot air. It is a pyramid scheme of selling hot air that will enrich already rich people and the bulk of us will pay like the patsies we are.
The true problem is that selling and buying carbon credits will entrench the dictatorships in the third world and keep it undeveloped. In addition China and India will become the main industrial powers of the globe and inevitably military ones, since they laugh at the west for committing economic hara kiri. How is your chinese, by the way?
The true problem is that the only way to avoid overpopulating the planet is by developing the third world so that their birthrate will naturally fall. This type of laws ensures that the poor will take recourse to the only enjoyment open to them, having children, and keep up their population boom, their illegal migration boom etc. etc.
Again, how is your chinese? indians do english well.
The basic truth is that whether or not climate change is at stakes, the primary concern is OF COURSE peak oil and fossile energy in general.
This is basic, known, key to the economy and a mess in the making.
Cap and trade is junk, doesn’t work , is moronic, bureacratic, expensive.
What is required is to put pressure, constraints, to twist investment decisions, and primarily for individual in fact.
This is why the proposal by James Hanse of a 100% redistributed carbon tax (should be called something else as not really a tax), is what should be done.
Quote :
”
The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.
”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/letter-to-barack-obama
@17:49:40 – I saw the article on Slashdot also. A lot of commenters in the real-scientists-say-its-so camp. One commented on Hansen’s credentials – modeler of other planets climates. Maybe he got the one for Earth mixed up with the one for Venus?
That’s an interesting claim. How does Al Gore become richer by his advocacy on this issue?
Ed Darrell (12:39:17) :
That’s an interesting claim. How does Al Gore become richer by his advocacy on this issue?
from a search with Google for Gore +carbon credits:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
WND THE HEAT IS ON
Gore’s ‘carbon offsets’
paid to firm he owns
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit
Obama claimed that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase: he stated that instead ““It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”
Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ famous quote:
“The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.
Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”
And after the way the rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Obama claimed that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase: he stated that instead ““It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”
Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ famous quote:
“The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.
Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”
And after the way the rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.
anna v, those stories say Gore spends money to off-set carbon use. I hope this isn’t a revelation to you, but when one spends money, that goes into the debit column.
In any case, buying carbon offsets is not making money from advocating that we go easy on carbon emissions, even if he weren’t writing the check to pay for it.
Each of those three sources makes the same allegation. Were there not the fact that Gore is right about the science, it would be a half-way fair complaint. But your saying Gore has a firm that deals in carbon offsets is like noting that the Motley Fool guys sell their newsletter with stock advice. That just means that they have an interest in getting their stock advice accurate.
Gore has a financial stake in being right. That’s quite contrary to anyone on the warming/climate change/human causation denial side. Only CEI has a financial stake in being wrong, and they only because their clients pay for their error as propaganda.
Ed Darrell:
What “fact”??
You should avoid coming across as a clueless fool, Darrell. Al Gore is in error regarding what he presumes to be the ‘science’, which is understandable coming from someone who got a “D” in his college Science class, who flunked out of Divinity School — and who absolutely runs away from any neutral, moderated debate.
Gore claims that increases in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe within five years; and the polar ice caps will disappear, Florida and London will be inundated, etc.
Would you like to bet on that result?
Life has been good to me. I will match your cash bet, up to one million dollars, that Gore is wrong in five years. Loser’s cash to be paid to the charity of the winner’s choice [and the winner receives the tax deduction]. Winner recovers his cash and all accrued interest. All cash [yours and mine] to be deposited into an interest bearing account [I want your interest, too], using a neutral escrow holder. Cash to be deposited not in 5 years… but now. Within thirty days. The terms and conditions can be agreed to regarding Gore’s definition of ‘climate catastrophe’ based on his public statements, using the services of a neutral AAA arbitrator, chosen by lot, and whose decision shall be final.
Darrell, I’m calling your bluff. Put up or shut up.
I hope your lawyers are on solid ground with the ‘fair use’ and ‘parody’ defenses of using Apple’s 1984 commercial. Apple’s lawyers are known to be rapacious. And since Algore is on their board, it would not surprise me if he were to urge reprisals.
In any event, I enjoyed the parody (x2, since the original was itself a sort of parody of the novel).
/Mr Lynn
Ed Darrell (18:20:58) :
Gore has a financial stake in being right.
!!!!
I rest my case .
Where I was educated it is called conflict of interest and he should not be in political positions where he can feather his nest.
Also schools should not be showing his advertisements and all his videos etc should be clearly labeled “advertising”.
We really are back in the robber baron stage for somebody to come out without tongue in cheek with such a statement.
That’s quite contrary to anyone on the warming/climate change/human causation denial side. Only CEI has a financial stake in being wrong, and they only because their clients pay for their error as propaganda.
Right, I and the majority of scientists against AGW have no financial stake and most of the vocal ones are retired like me, because of job security fears.
What a $%^&*
Joel Shore (20:09:02) :
“First of all, Gavin does not dismiss Carlin because he isn’t a climate scientist.”
From “Bubkes”, at RC, comment 8:
“Henry chance Says:
26 June 2009 at 9:46 AM
[Response: What’s your point? He isn’t a climate scientist, he’s an expert in environmental economics. How much Earth Science did you get in physics degree in the 1970s? Even now? One might have expected some basic statistics, but even that is not evident in the paper. – gavin]
CNET has this now, but of course it’s the CBS story (CNET is owned by CBS)-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html?tag=nl.e703
Also, Fox News carried the EPA suppression of Alan Carlin this morning on television.
And there is now this from Fox News detailing Senator Inhofe’s official investigation into EPAgency suppression of skeptical reports:
Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into ‘Suppressed’ Climate Change Report
Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst’s report questioning the science behind global warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/
This, along with Will Happer’s 54 noted physicists demanding the American Physical Society change their stance on AGW. Things are… ahem, heating up.