Sensenbrenner Report Challenges EPA Greenhouse Finding

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Jim_Sensenbrenner.jpg/225px-Jim_Sensenbrenner.jpgThis morning, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, will release a staff report on the scientific issues that tend to discredit the EPA’s endangerment finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

The report’s release coincides with the opening of a committee hearing entitled “The Foundation of Climate Science.” During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic (as well as a Pajamas Media contributor).

The report summarizes a number of revelations that, according to Rep Sensenbrenner’s staff, combine to call into question the scientific validity of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).  Many of these have been reported in Pajamas Media since our original report on the Climategate files.

The IPCC report might seem to be a secondary issue, however flawed it may be, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to base endangerment findings on well-accepted, peer-reviewed science. However, in the EPA’s regulatory announcement (released on April 24, 2009), the EPA itself noted that it “relies most heavily on the major assessment reports of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). EPA took this approach rather than conducting a new assessment of the scientific literature.” [emphasis added]

read the complete article here

Advertisements

98 thoughts on “Sensenbrenner Report Challenges EPA Greenhouse Finding

  1. Yesterday Obey runs from the field, and today Sensenbrenner swings for the fences!
    On Wisconsin!!!

  2. He will be villified.
    I am waiting for the report on the dangers and death rates of accidents from driving fuel sipping small cars.

  3. My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with?
    REPLY: My God, is the fake scientist Al Gore still talking to people as if he knows something?

  4. Yep and we know how much Beer reviewed science made it into the IPCC findings, now don’t we? Somehow 4 vs 1 even if the 1 is Monckton seems to be stacking the deck in favor of the IPCC.

  5. “EPA took this approach rather than conducting a new assessment of the scientific literature.”
    Just as well…since they would have rung up another 5 million dollars of tax payer money to perform a new assessment, and probably just agreed with the IPCC anyway. When they are predisposed to a conclusion already, it’s unlikely the facts would sway the outcome.

  6. The EPA’s finding, and therefore AGW Climate Science, rests on very thin air.
    As thin as 140 ppm.
    Imagine waking up one day on the wrong side of an equation.

  7. Browner and company are fanatical, ignorant, loons. It is all about power with the EPA. The power to destroy industry gives them power over all of us.

  8. This is the most fantastic blog.
    Anthony had us read the memo 1 year ago that is an internal lawyer clam that the EPA is full of hot air.
    Nice thing about the web is cross reference of stories. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/leaked-omb-co2-memo-no-demonstrated-direct-health-effects/
    But here is the real kicker.
    There’s language in the memo that says there may be beneficial effects to increased CO2 rather than negative effects, and that man, as always, can quickly adapt:
    “To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages,” the memo reads. “The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.] … It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons,” the authors note.
    Internal secret lawyer memos call out Lisa Jackson’s idiocy.
    The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.
    “In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.
    We need hearings and we can call their own people to explain the sweet internal reports.

  9. A bit unfair I would have thought, four against one.
    The alarmists will need many more than four to contend with Moncktons intellect and grasp of climate science.

  10. I would be interested in knowing who the four IPCC supporters Monckton will be facing are.

  11. There is no need to wait to know what the results will be! We do not even need to know who is defending the IPCC! If the testimony was balanced to include equal testimony from both sides maybe!

  12. EPA has recently published a report “Climate Change Indicators in the United States”.
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf
    It is clear from this that their whole case for man being responsible for ‘dangerous climate change’ is based on the IPCC assessment reports. So their proposed regulation of CO2 is based on these ‘dodgy dossiers’, and surely stands or falls with them.
    The EPA report states “Warming of the climate system is well documented, evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is very likely the cause of most of the recent observed increase in average temperatures, and contributes to other climate changes.” The reference in the endnote is given as “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.”
    Also: “Before the industrial era began around 1780, carbon dioxide concentrations measured approximately 270–290 ppm. Concentrations have risen steadily since then, reaching 387 ppm in 2009—a 38 percent increase. Almost all of this increase is due to human activities.” The reference in the endnote is given as “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.”
    Also: “Since 1905, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has roughly doubled. It is very likely that this increase is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use.” The reference in the endnote is given as “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report (Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.”
    For the persistence of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, EPA uses the 50-200 year figure from the SAR. They state:
    “Data source: EPA uses atmospheric lifetimes and global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Second Assessment Report, as countries have agreed to do under current international treaties within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).” Endnote gives “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. Climate change 1995: The science of climate change (Second Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.”
    Very telling, however, is that there is NO reference given for the alleged ‘heat trapping’ effect of the ‘greenhouse gasses’, just bald assertions.

  13. Fantastic, Anthony. Thanks for the update on this.
    I wish I could have heard the intro to this mornings hearing – even though what I did hear (toward the end) could have been argued as a complete waste of valuable time. What I heard did a lot to infuriate me, not so much about what some politicians will sacrifice (if ever had any amount of honest curiousity), but about the careless ignorance and/or whatever could be the objective of (fill in for yourself) some “Big Gov. “scientists'” agenda in maliciously and disdainfully sacrificing whatever integrity reputable science, in this open climate science strives to maintain.
    I have always stated my support and relative empathys’ for Dr. Alan Carlin and hold him as one of those who have dared to honorably risk the his career and reputation for the objective principles of science and public service. He must be highly recognized!
    As I’ve other-where essentially stated today – Markey’s hearings today were a farce. Nothing but a disservice to the Country, the People and science.

  14. “During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic.”
    I like Monckton, I hope he articulates his views well, however, this is simply another predetermined outcome hearing. Another farcical event in a long line of farcical events. Power hungry and tax happy dolts hell bent on destroying any remnants of our free society.
    We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.—John F. Kennedy

  15. See presentations to the Committee:
    The Foundation of Climate Science
    IPCC Report Chairs, Member of Exculpatory Panel on Email Scandal Re-establish Climate Science’s Broad Knowledge, Urgency to Act
    Even after months of personal attacks against climate scientists stemming from a manufactured scandal over stolen emails, the underlying science behind the need to stem the tide of heat-trapping emissions remains solid. To explain what we know about climate change, and why and how we know it, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hosted top-level American climate scientists at a congressional hearing on Thursday, May 6, 2010.
    The scientists addressed the claims of deniers head-on. Thursday’s panel featured a member of the investigative panel convened by the University of East Anglia and led by Lord Ron Oxburgh to review the stolen emails from that school’s Climactic Research Unit. The “Oxburgh Inquiry” exonerated the scientists who were attacked following the emails, saying they “saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work.”
    The hearing also included three scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, which have also been attacked by climate science deniers.
    The Republican witness on the panel was Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
    WHAT: Select Committee hearing, “The Foundation of Climate Science”
    WHEN: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 9:30 AM
    WHERE: U.S. Capitol Complex, Washington, DC.
    OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey
    WITNESSES:
    Dr. Lisa Graumlich, Director, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, and member of the “Oxburgh Inquiry” panel
    Dr. Chris Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, and co-chair of “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” portion of new IPCC report due in 2014
    Dr. James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University, past President and Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, co-chair of “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” portion of IPCC report published in 2001
    Dr. James Hurrell, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, contributor to IPCC reports
    Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Adviser, Science and Public Policy Institute

  16. If I didn’t mention my appreciation for Rep. Sensenbrenner’s work and this Report let me do so here. This is another of the essential steps that must be continually made to halt the CAGWer rush to catastrophically wasting money, time, resources, minds and our future in “correcting a problem” that most likely doesn’t exist and which we could likely aggravate through relative ignorant intervention.
    I wish my Rep. were of the ilk of Rep. Sensenbrenner. However, Marcia Fudge (Cleveland, OH) is a CAGW drone. Of my Senators Sherrod Brown, also is a CAGW drone, whereas Senator Voinovich (on the EPW Committee) is, pretty much, a non-CAGWer, but one is never quite certain how certain.

  17. With so many serious sceptical scientists to choose from – Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Loehle, Soon, Douglass etc., – I too am wondering why a layman is giving evidence? Still, Lord Monckton has a good handle on all the key points and is an excellent communicator. It is often the case that the greatest experts do not make the best teachers. Monckton should do a fine job.

  18. Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
    Not definite ‘truth’, but over 2500 pages of text that is actually
    readable and there is some flavor …. intellectual curiosity?
    Try it.

  19. Well how is that a fair hearing; a 4:1 bias in the data input. Don’t count on anything beneficial to humans coming out of such a farce.
    I think Viscount Monckton is an excellent spokesman for the case against the AGW thesis; but he is always subjected to one criticism; which is hard for him to dispel; that being the lack of formal academic credentials in the appropriate Sciences. His history going back to Science Advisor to The Margaret Thatcher Government, is an important part of his resume; but it has to be difficult for The Congress, to place his efforts alongside people who do have relevent Science academic credentials.
    If Senator Sensenbrenner is serious; he should get some Physics power to support Lord Monckton. That Lisa Jackson dingbat is on safe ground with her finding of harm for CO2; since she has the National Academies of Science to throw down as a starting position.
    I would like to see somebody with the stature of say Professor Will Happer of Princeton University, to call in on something like this. Prof Richard Lindzen of course is another; but to ask Viscount Monckton to carry the whole load against four Warmistas, is just stacking the deck.
    Why the hell are the Republicans such wimps, when it comes to addressing these important issues. They got snookered into that “health nocare” monstrosity by their ineptness; and I can see the ship going down again with this climate fiasco.
    Christopher needs some acknowledged Physics muscle to accompany his admirable oratory.

  20. Hey toby (May 6, 2010 at 8:44 am) Didn’t Little Lulu tell you not to play with the bad guys?

  21. Senate cap-and-trade bill coming out next week — Boxer
    You can find Sen. Inhofe’s Blog E&E full piece on this at:
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=6a60b36d-802a-23ad-4e05-7a18dc57bd71&Issue_id=
    “E&E News
    Senate cap-and-trade bill coming out next week — Boxer
    (05/05/2010)
    Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Voorhees, E&E reporters
    Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are planning to release their climate and energy bill as soon as next week even if they cannot win back their longtime GOP partner, according to a top Senate Democrat.
    Kerry revealed the tentative schedule for the unveiling of his long-awaited measure during the Democrats’ weekly meeting of committee leaders. “He said it’s looking good, and he hopes to have a press conference next week,” said Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
    Both Kerry and Lieberman sidestepped questions about the timing of their bill. “It’s coming soon,” Lieberman said. ………”
    Here we go again! I cannot suggest strongly enough that we all connect with our Senators to attempt to keep them from wasting efforts, money and the future by shutting down dependable, proven and large variably available energy sources while subsidizing wasteful, exorbitantly expensive, insufficient solar and windmills based upon a non – supportable. strongly unlikely CAGW conjecture!

  22. Hope Lord Monckton of Brenchley has taken with him a sufficient quantity of diapers as he is going to provoke a flood of peeing among bedwetters

  23. “”” toby says:
    May 6, 2010 at 8:44 am
    My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with? “””
    toby, is evidently an ignoramus; Viscount Monckton, is not, and has not been a member of the British House of Lords.
    That comment is in the class of “are you smarter than a fifth grader ?”, because any ten year old; and a lot of six year old first graders know how to Google, and read up on Lord Monckton’s history; and that of his ancesters from whom, his title stems.
    And I’m not aware of him ever having claimed to be a Member of the House of Lords; well you are the first I have heard or seen, actually claim that he is; when you branded him as a fake.
    You’ll need better arguments than that toby to continue foisting this AGW silliness on a still lagely uninformed public.

  24. mikael pihlström says:
    May 6, 2010 at 10:04 am
    Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
    Not definite ‘truth’, but over 2500 pages of text that is actually
    readable and there is some flavor …. intellectual curiosity?
    Try it.
    PLM – That piece of crap (excuse me, please) is constantly being trashed! When you get past the Greenpeace and WWF contrivances, the self-reviewed “scientific” citations, the hacked-up beyond recognition authoritative research – what do you have left? A horribly written compilation of CAGW (etc.) agenda driven cast of self-serving Pachauri characters.
    Mikael, if you don’t know that how did you find this blog? You certainly couldn’t have seriously reviewed anything here.

  25. Three levels of hearsay evidence?
    The EPA doesn’t do science research but relies on the IPCC.
    The IPCC doesn’t do research but they do take the word from their friends who do.
    The IPCC relies on the WWF and Greenpeace.
    The WWF and Greenpeace don’t do research but rely on Algore and friends that do.
    Algore relies on the IPCC which brings us full circle. Circular reasoning.
    Somewhere they insert Gazprom drills near trees in Siberia which Briffa saw and sawed. The trees spoke out and told Briffa to tell Mann that it is getting hot. Very hot.
    Mann says the heat is hidden but won’t tell us where.
    Have I left anything out? Oh yeah. Where is the scientific proof from the laboratory?
    We found “models” but we have no verified observation.

  26. George E. Smith says:
    May 6, 2010 at 10:06 am
    Well how is that a fair hearing; a 4:1 bias in the data input. Don’t count on anything beneficial to humans coming out of such a farce.
    – Not only that, but the CAGWers control the gavel and essentially have a 9-6 Committeeman advantage over the Hearing.

  27. toby says:
    May 6, 2010 at 8:44 am
    My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with?
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Well it is better than the UK parliament where the skeptics had NO representation at all but it is still three for and one against and that one not a scientist. You think they could have at least included Lindzen.

  28. toby says:
    May 6, 2010 at 8:44 am
    My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with?
    ========================================================
    Toby, do you remember getting a vote in who appears at the hearing? No? Me either. The reason for that is there was none. The anti-industrialists are in the majority, they get to pick the agenda. While Monckton is a bright and articulate fellow, I’m certain his arguments will fall on deaf ears. BTW, you need to brush up on the traditions and rules of G.B., you’re showing your ignorance.

  29. call me a cynic but…
    it’s all just part of the puppet show.
    cap and trade will pass, just like every other bill the vast majority of americans of all persuasion opposed being passed
    as long as folks continue voting for republicrats, we will see only the continuing creep toward totalitarianism in this country

  30. mikael pihlström says:
    May 6, 2010 at 10:04 am
    “Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
    Not definite ‘truth’, but over 2500 pages of text that is actually
    readable and there is some flavor …. intellectual curiosity?
    Try it.”
    ========================================================
    No, it is a summation of a point of view. It was suppose to be a review of science regarding climate change, not a verbose opinion article sprinkled with faux science and misrepresented by the chair of the panel.

  31. We have not yet understood that IPCC reports are like the psalms of the bible, they are intended not for reading but for praying.

  32. Why don’t the alarmist hoaxers try and find Al Gore’s swaddling blanket of CO2. The fact that it’s missing, despite all the AGW flawed climate models predict it should be there, it’s still missing.
    In a world based on sound science that alone would be enough to falsify the whole idiotic theory that a trace gas can do anything of significance.
    Hey at least it’s now down to 4:1, it could be worse.

  33. James Sexton;
    Monckton is a bright and articulate fellow, I’m certain his arguments will fall on deaf ears.
    Unfortunately it will be so. As the spanish proverb says: “There is not a most deaf one as the one who does not want to hear”

  34. ” mikael pihlström says:
    Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
    Not definite ‘truth’, but over 2500 pages of text that is actually
    readable and there is some flavor …. intellectual curiosity?
    Try it. ”
    I liked the page where they say which himalayan glacier retreats by how many meters in a year in a table, on the same page they said the glaciers might be gone by 2035. I thought, hey, that’s some short glaciers, retreating 25m per year and gone in 25 years, but when i looked them up in the wikipedia, they turned out to be up to 60 km long. It was a good laugh.

  35. Only 4 to 1? Monckton will wonder why they didn’t bring enough to make it a fair fight.

  36. I heard only the last 45 miniutes of Rep. Markey’s U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing, testimony and CAGW model cheerleading was concluded, before Anthony’s Sensenbrenner post was up.
    Among the outcomes was the inflating of the egos of the CAGWers’ and their exploiting another opportunity to spew one-sided CAGW propaganda – at the expense of scientific debate and public perception (political near-reality). The CAGWers will be able to use this exercise as another propaganda tool. What a loss for all.
    I still don’t know why Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Ranking Member didn’t seek to subject an experienced, respected, lettered non-CAGW scientist to this public dissection? Did all of them decline invitations? My hat’s off to Monckton for taking the hit, he does serve non-CAGW well in appropriate situations, but I believe this was a very bad outcome for the climate science “debate”. The truth denying continues.
    Monckton tried to give an explanation as to why he was chosen to rep. the non-CAGWers as the Reps. didn’t want to subject a non-CAGW scientist to the anticipated haranguing that he is, in fact, experienced during the hearing. However, the Repubs have handed the Dems (generally the cagwers) a convenient opportunity to characterize non-CAGWers as a cause without credentialed authoritative representation.
    The Dems were disgusting. They couldn’t even be patronizing.
    Now attention must shift to the Senate. Check in at Sen. Inhofe’s EPW Minorty Blog at:
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs for updates as Boxer is noted stating that the Kerry/Lieberman(Graham) Cap and Trade (Tax/Fraud) bill will be out next week.
    In a posting at the blog E&E is excerpted, alarmingly, reporting:
    “We are hopeful, given the short time frame left in the window for considering this legislation, that we’ll get some support,” Miller said. “Because if we don’t, the chances we’re going to be able to legislate on this in the next few years is going to decline significantly.”
    Top GOP targets include Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, George LeMieux of Florida, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and George Voinovich of Ohio. But many of those senators say they are taking a wait-and-see approach until Kerry releases the legislation.
    “I’m willing to work on it,” LeMieux said today. “I’d like to see it. I was about to see it, but then the whole process fell apart.”
    Contact your Senators!

  37. I have three words to say about the IPCC : CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It does not take a computer whiz to find the blatant corruption throughout the IPCC (just look at Pachauri’s portfolio, he stands to make a (snip)-load of moolah from his “investments”). Where are the damn gatekeepers? Who is supposed to be looking out for the people? Alas, it seems the golden rule still applies, …..

  38. #
    paullm says:
    May 6, 2010 at 10:32 am
    —-
    PLM – That piece of crap (excuse me, please) is constantly being trashed! When you get past the Greenpeace and WWF contrivances, the self-reviewed “scientific” citations, the hacked-up beyond recognition authoritative research – what do you have left? A horribly written compilation of CAGW (etc.) agenda driven cast of self-serving Pachauri characters.
    Mikael, if you don’t know that how did you find this blog? You certainly couldn’t have seriously reviewed anything here.
    —–
    Well, the war of blogs is not exactly secret and low-key anymore.
    So this blog is easy to find and the IPCC reports (although downloadable)
    will not be widely read – that is a problem.

  39. A typical David vs. Goliath scenario.
    A formidable underdog, for sure, but being a “furrener” to boot, they might just as well have bound and gagged him for the presentation.
    When the models predict tomorrow’s and next week’s and next month’s weather to within 95% confidence limits, then and only then will I lend credence to their “predictions”. Recall that the IPCC et al indicated that their models were not able to “predict” anything.

  40. paullm says:
    May 6, 2010 at 10:32 am
    mikael pihlström says:
    May 6, 2010 at 10:04 am
    Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available…
    Try it.
    PLM – That piece of crap (excuse me, please) is constantly being trashed! …
    Mikael, if you don’t know that how did you find this blog? You certainly couldn’t have seriously reviewed anything here.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Thank you paullm, you beat me to it. From his comments mikael pihlström is a newbie who is not yet well enough educated to actually engage in the discussion yet. Unfortunately he is trying to sound like an expert.

  41. mikael pihlström says:
    “So this blog is easy to find and the IPCC reports (although downloadable)
    will not be widely read – that is a problem.”
    No, the fact that this site is easy to find is not a problem — except to someone who is worried that their climate alarmism isn’t getting traction.
    And the fact that the UN/IPCC’s climate propaganda isn’t widely read is a good thing. Any committee of political appointees with marching orders to disseminate false climate alarmism in order to raise taxes and prices across the board should instead be shut down and disbanded for being contrary to good public policy.

  42. You people keep mentioning the “corruption of the IPCC”.
    Someday you will realize that that corruption is dwarfed and enabled by the corruption in the U.S. Government.

  43. paullm says:
    May 6, 2010 at 11:09 am
    “…In a posting at the blog E&E is excerpted, alarmingly, reporting:
    “We are hopeful, given the short time frame left in the window for considering this legislation, that we’ll get some support,” Miller said. “Because if we don’t, the chances we’re going to be able to legislate on this in the next few years is going to decline significantly.”
    Top GOP targets include Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine,…”

    _____________________________________________________________________
    Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine proved to be a very reasonable person when my brother-in-law approached her on another bill she was co-sponsoring. Once she hear the true story behind the bill she withdrew her support and the bill has since faded.
    Anyone from Maine want to try talking to her? My brother-in-law is not up on AGW nor is he a scientist who can get up to speed easily.

  44. paullm:
    Lord Monckton is the best qualified for this “environment” as he usually presses the most sensitive and presumptuous egos of these by mom and daddy spoiled post-normal-science kids.

  45. #
    DirkH says:
    May 6, 2010 at 10:57 am
    ” mikael pihlström says:
    Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
    —–
    I liked the page where they say which himalayan glacier retreats by how many meters in a year in a table, on the same page they said the glaciers might be gone by 2035. I thought, hey, that’s some short glaciers, retreating 25m per year and gone in 25 years, but when i looked them up in the wikipedia, they turned out to be up to 60 km long. It was a good laugh.
    —–
    That was the worst mistake found, a few more mistakes of little
    importance – on 2500 pages. If you take 3 months off and read it
    through and through, you might find 5 more. So what? It doesn’t
    change the essence, neither does the fact that IPCC 2020 will
    laugh at many things in IPCC 2007. No credible alternative has
    been presented, Pielke Sr. talks about clouds – but how does it work,
    could one see a graph of the mechanism?

  46. Since the whole debate has been so completely politicized the Senator’s, what ever it is, would seem to be appropriate. This however has noting to do with the issue. That is simply a red hearing. Nor does anything the EPA has done either. In the end it is science and its role in providing informed objective information to the whole debate that will suffer, as it has been thus far.

  47. The English speaking world is, perhaps due to the language, so very naive. We tend to love heroic, romantic, sensational historic fairy tales…. ‘Once upon a time, in a world far, far away, scientists were pure and noble people….’ Well, it’s just not really, technically, factually, actually true; not ever 70% true. I guess that’s why so many still refuse to believe, and so many others took so long to recognize, that it is possible to purchase accredited scientists for about a dime a dozen in some sections of the planet and give them a beer and/or tickle their chin and get them to sign on to anything.
    More and more, I hate to say, scientists are becoming so very much like ambulance chasing lawyers; or worse, lifelong, professional politicians. No! Not All! But enough are so that the profession of science is becoming a rather smelly, sordid, raunchy affair; rather like a sewer of sorts. Perhaps one day, let us hope and dream, the good scientists will do a little house cleaning and disinfect their own abode; especially the latrine. Perhaps this will preclude another IPCC from forming in future with the aid of so many carpetbagger “scientists” who’ll say or do anything for a beer or tickle of their chin.

  48. New major report by the National Academy of Sciences supporting the science behind climate change:
    http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html
    But of course, dear Lord Monckton knows better than the two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates who are behind this report, because he what degree in physics or science from where?
    Sad…truly sad.

  49. mikael pihlström says:
    May 6, 2010 at 11:57 am
    No credible alternative has been presented…
    You are correct: no credible alternative to naturally-occurring climate change (the null hypothesis) has been presented, despite the best efforts of the climate bedwetters to pin the blame on C02.
    Keep up the good work.

  50. R. Gates says:
    May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm [ … ]
    If it weren’t for his ad hominem attacks taking the place of scientific facts, R. Gates wouldn’t have a thing to say.

  51. Smokey says:
    May 6, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    R. Gates says:
    May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm [ … ]
    If it weren’t for his ad hominem attacks taking the place of scientific facts, R. Gates wouldn’t have a thing to say.
    You forgot his appeal to authority too!!!
    R. Gates, 255 whole scientists? You ever hear of the Oregon petition? I’ll see your 255 and raise you 31,000.

  52. 4 against 1? That’s not really fair . . . for the 4.
    Lord Monckton is an excellent choice. As R. Pielke Jr. says, this debate has moved from the scientific arena to the political one. Lord Monckton understands the science very well but just as importantly, understands the politics even better. He knows that just putting facts in front the congressional hearing, no matter how right he is, it isn’t enough. The only climate scientist I’ve seen that has the political and oral savvy to get in front of them and perform well is Dr. Ball. John Christie isn’t bad, but the others are scientists through and through. That’s not meant to be an insult, but how one delivers a message matters.
    75% plus of congressional members don’t have a clue about the science behind it. But most of them realize the idea of catastrophic AGW/Cap ‘N Trade is load of horse bleep but see it as a tool to move the USA from a path of foreign oil dependence to one of independence. (Sane environmental laws would probably accomplish much of that too)
    Lord Monckton needs to show them how supporting Cap ‘N Trade is detrimental to their political life. Tough to do considering campaign contributors such as GE, Kleiner/Perkins and envirowackos have created this mythical evil beast, invested billions in alternative energy and the pressure they are mounting on the administration is immense.

  53. Layne:
    I of course read your comment about 4:1 not being fair right after I hit the submit button!!

  54. From what I remember the IPCC can include in its assessments non-peer reviewed grey literature. To me this would partly call into question:

    “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to base endangerment findings on well-accepted, peer-reviewed science.”

  55. I have nothing against Lord Moncton, but some variety in the skeptic voices that end up at these things would be nice. I doubt it will ever be Steve or Anthony, but there are several PhDs that would be quite suitable. The more variety, the less able the other side is to attack individuals as if smearing a given individual will retire the argument.

  56. R. Gates says:
    May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    New major report by the National Academy of Sciences supporting the science behind climate change:
    http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html
    But of course, dear Lord Monckton knows better than the two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates who are behind this report, because he what degree in physics or science from where?
    Sad…truly sad.
    ==========================
    Excerpt from the link you provided:
    “It specifically reaffirms the “compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend,” and highlights that there is nothing identified in recent events that has changed the fundamental conclusions about climate change.”
    It is sad, that this Press Release so excites you.
    Let’s wait for:
    “Their statement, “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” will be published in the journal Science on May 7, 2010 as the Lead Letter, along with a supporting editorial.”
    I assume it will be more “consensus” science.

  57. R. Gates says: at 12:25 pm
    New major report …. It’s a statement, not a report and why you would deem it to be “major” is – – well, dramatic, at best.

  58. R. Gates says:
    “New major report by the National Academy of Sciences”
    That is so funny. It was a loyalty oath.

  59. STEPHEN PARKERuk says:
    May 6, 2010 at 11:59 am
    4 verses one. we like those odds, makes us brits fight a bit harder
    Thanks Stephen. That really helps perk up my ancestral English in these incredible times (:-)). Monckton did quite well actually, while being mercilessly mocked. The Dems proved themselves, once again – exceptionally crass ideologues.

  60. One look at what’s happening in Greece today should convince Congress that pushing forward with the Climate Change legislation is a “going down the wrong track” path.

  61. Gail Combs says:
    May 6, 2010 at 11:51 am
    Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine proved to be a very reasonable person when my brother-in-law approached her on another bill she was co-sponsoring. Once she hear the true story behind the bill she withdrew her support and the bill has since faded.
    Anyone from Maine want to try talking to her? My brother-in-law is not up on AGW nor is he a scientist who can get up to speed easily.
    – Thrilled to hear about Snowe. I do hope somebody here does get through to her!

  62. mikael pihlström says:
    It doesn’t change the essence, neither does the fact that IPCC 2020 will
    laugh at many things in IPCC 2007.

    There will not be an IPCC in 2020.

    No credible alternative has been presented, Pielke Sr. talks about clouds – but how does it work, could one see a graph of the mechanism?

    See, here’s what’s wrong with the entire scenario as it exists today. Sure, there’s been some steady, monotonous warming over the last century, at least the record appears to show that (although, the record is highly contaminated and therefore suspect). So, why aren’t the climate scientists trying to figure out why?
    CO2 has been demonstrated to NOT be the driver. Instead of actually attempting to identify the driver, they’ve all gone off the rails on this CO2 tangent. Millions of people believe it’s CO2, but it isn’t. It’s a travesty.

  63. Monkton is great, but the testifiers should be 4:1 against the EPA endangerment finding. I don’t know what Sen. Senseless is trying to prove, but if this is the best he can do, then boot him out. I hate this “throw the proles a bone” type of governance. This issue is VERY BIG. Sen. Senseless appears to be playing footsie games. Not satisfactory, not by a long shot.

  64. R. Gates keeps confusing team playing yes-men for real scientists. Remember Galileo Galilei??? Science does not care what a million people believe. The only thing that matters is if the hypothesis, a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon, is verified or refuted by the experimental data. A computer model is NOT experimental data.
    Remember Dr. Trenberth, said in one of the CRU emails:
    ” The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
    And this guy want us to wreck western civilization by limiting access to energy???

  65. Mike from Canmore says:
    May 6, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    “Lord Monckton needs to show them how supporting Cap ‘N Trade is detrimental to their political life.”
    Yup. Politicians in a nutshell. Nail? – meet head of hammer.

  66. Being a 25% skeptic, I’ve repeatedly asked for the skeptical viewpoint for why one of the major predictions of AGWT is happening, namely: the cooling of the stratosphere. I’ve never received one credible response to this. AGWT states quite plainly that it should occur, as LW radiation is held up by the increasing CO2 in the troposphere, and this is quite easy to understand from a pure physics standpoint. So what do AGW skeptics attribute stratospheric cooling too, if not the trapping of LW radiation in the troposphere by increasing amounts of CO2?

  67. Al Gore’s Weather (AGW): Mah father knew Joe. Daddy said Joe was a good Catholic boy.
    “‘McCarthy-Like Threats'”.
    Joe Who?
    …-
    “Images show Iceland volcano intensifying”
    “The UK Met Office has released a vivid series of images that show the Eyjafjallajokull volcano intensifying.
    In the satellite pictures, which use infrared wavelengths, the ash plume appears bright orange and grows larger over time.
    The plume gradually increased in size over a period of approximately six hours on Thursday morning.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8665482.stm
    …-
    “Climate change science sound: researchers
    CBC.ca – ‎1 hour ago‎
    The journal Science has published a letter defending the integrity of climate science, signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences.”
    “Stop politicizing climate change, urges letter from top scientists Montreal Gazette”
    “Scientists Lash at ‘McCarthy-Like Threats’ New York Times (blog)”
    (googlenews)
    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013938.html#comments

  68. rbateman says:
    May 6, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    One look at what’s happening in Greece today should convince Congress that pushing forward with the Climate Change legislation is a “going down the wrong track” path.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    It is the correct track if the real objective is to allow China to become the next super power. Note where Maurice Strong, father of this environmental movement is now living… in Beijing China of course. Note the contempt with which Obama was treated by the Chinese at Copenhagen. They sent an errand boy to deal with him. The sun is setting on the USA as a super power. The changes in our banking laws and the ratifying of the World Trade Organization were the key pieces in recent times, Cap and Trade is just the final nail in our coffin.
    Leveraged buyouts in the 1980’s transferred the wealth of our industries to the bankers and then the WTO exported what were left. In 1990, before WTO was ratified, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP click
    The USA just does not have the industrial base needed to be a super power anymore and neither does the UK.

  69. “”” R. Gates says:
    May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    New major report by the National Academy of Sciences supporting the science behind climate change:
    http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html
    But of course, dear Lord Monckton knows better than the two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates who are behind this report, because he what degree in physics or science from where? “””
    Well just where did you get the idea that those 255 members (a) all agree with the Academy majority report; and (b) are scientists competent in the applicable fields of science.
    For a start; most of them are not climate scientists; and probably mostly not Physicists either. Secondly the Academy doesn’t issue any minority report. They may listen to arguments from dissenters; but if the majority disagree; it is left out of ther majority report; and it never sees the light of day, or the desk of the president or the Congress.
    The of course the prerequisites for being a menber of the National Academy of Sciences, is that you have to be sponsored by somebody else who is already a member; that is a pretty good definition of “The Old Boys Club.” Teh Academy self selcts its members; not based on them reaching some recognised level of scientific achievement; but simply being invited to join by somebody else who is a member; and thinks oyu will toe the party line.
    If you think the Academy is going to invite somebody to membership; who is already known to have contrarian beliefs to the membership; then you are liklely smoking something illegal.
    You know what they say; why would I want to join an organisation of people who would have me as a member. The Academy’s biggest failure in their supposed purpose of advising the President, and the Congress on matters of Scientific importance; is the cronyism that is rampant in that outfit.
    Yes there are credible members of the academy who disagree with the AGW mantra; but absent a minority report to advise the Government on the contrarian opinions; that body is next to useless; it’s like a great echo chamber; with the members listening to the reverberation of their own biasses.

  70. Anthony,
    Here is an e-mail I just recieved;
    ROSES-10 Amendment 4: Final text for Appendix A.24: Enhancing the Capability of Computational Earth System Models and NASA Data for Operation and Assessment. 4:12 pm (2 hours ago)
    Final text for Appendix A.24: Enhancing the Capability of Computational Earth System Models and NASA Data for Operation and Assessment.
    This solicitation offers investigators an opportunity to analyze, assess, and increase the impact of NASA data in research and operational environments, particularly in the areas of weather prediction, climate projection assessment, and global carbon cycle modeling in anticipation of carbon management regulations. This solicitation seeks three areas of proposals: (a) Acceleration of Operational Use of Research Data including Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation (JCSDA), (b) data for IPCC climate projection assessment, and (c) computational support of Earth system modeling.
    Amendment 4 releases the final version of the text of Appendix A.24, which replaces the draft text in its entirety. Notices of Intent to are due July 15, 2010 and Proposals are due September 17, 2010.
    On or about May 7, 2010, this Amendment to the NASA Research Announcement “Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) 2010” (NNH10ZDA001N) will be posted on the NASA research opportunity homepage at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (select “Solicitations” then “Open Solicitations” then “NNH10ZDA001N”). You can now track amendments, clarifications and corrections to ROSES and subscribe to an RSS feed at: http://nasascience.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/roses-2010
    Questions concerning this program may be addressed to Tsengdar Lee, Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001; Telephone: (202) 358-0860; E-mail: tsengdar.j.lee@nasa.gov.

  71. Steve in SC says:
    May 6, 2010 at 11:48 am
    You people keep mentioning the “corruption of the IPCC”.
    Someday you will realize that that corruption is dwarfed and enabled by the corruption in the U.S. Government.
    plm – OK, so both are huge and both corrupt. At least in the U.S. we still have at least the framework of “checks and balances” to occasionally “correct” dangerous variations to recognized fundamental human weaknesses (hopefully our next election will do that!), while the U.N. has nothing of the kind and while it has been designed to accommodate unchecked mob democracy with financially and militarily powerful disfunctional committees. It appears to me that the U.S. will continue its’ trend to become completely subordinate to the U.N. and simply construct a larger, more corrupt, dictatorial bureaucracy that will irresponsibly endanger everyone through ideological whims and disfunction. Corruption in the U.S. we can still (?) deal with, although it can be painful. Corruption under the U.N./IPCC is voluntary and no recourse. Does the U.N. sound good to you? Not here – get your Senators to keep/get the UN/IPCC out of our policies!
    Got news for you – the IPCC 2020 (if it is ever written) would have even more laughs written into it!
    Credible alternatives to the IPCC 2007? It seems like you’re looking for a silver bullet for a non-problem. The IPCC 2007 is as ridiculous as a smutty Pachauri novel and no alternative to anything except sanity. How about some good old fashioned sanity, hard work and clear thinking about real and/or recognized matters like re-creating a healthy economy where we can be best prepared for whatever climatic calamity could befall us and not limiting us to picking one unlikely (CAGW) scenario and creating our economy around a “fool’s bet” for political purposes.

  72. mikael pihlström says:
    May 6, 2010 at 11:57 am
    So what? It doesn’t change the essence, neither does the fact that IPCC 2020 will
    laugh at many things in IPCC 2007. No credible alternative has been presented, Pielke Sr. talks about clouds – but how does it work, could one see a graph of the mechanism?
    plm – Pielke and clouds? Look, he’s not selling them as the do all/end all where you have to go all in or die, and try prove him wrong. On the other hand try to prove CO2 CAGW right – with your own money, on your own time. That hasn’t been done, yet even while wasting billions (trillions?) in tax money and threatens to crash the world economies, killing millions of innocent souls for what purpose – their own good?
    Look bub, get out of my kids pockets and my votes on Roger, Sr.!
    Hey, guess what Mikael, try: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/pielke-sr-on-revkins-question/ , fresh off the WUWT educational blog.

  73. R. Gates says:
    May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    New major report by the National Academy of Sciences supporting the science behind climate change:
    http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html
    But of course, dear Lord Monckton knows better than the two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates who are behind this report

    First comment to this linked story is interesting:
    90% of NAS members did not sign it.

  74. mikael pihlström says:
    May 6, 2010 at 11:57 am

    ….
    That was the worst mistake found, a few more mistakes of little
    importance – on 2500 pages. If you take 3 months off and read it
    through and through, you might find 5 more. So what? It doesn’t
    change the essence, neither does the fact that IPCC 2020 will
    laugh at many things in IPCC 2007. No credible alternative has
    been presented, Pielke Sr. talks about clouds – but how does it work,
    could one see a graph of the mechanism?

    Mikael, thanks for your thoughts. While the IPCC is a passable overview of the mainstream view of climate science, climate science is a new field. Unfortunately, it contains many claims based on newspaper reports, student theses, and Greenpeace and WWF propaganda puff pieces.
    The most egregious exaggerations in the IPCC report are the claims of certainty, which are not based on science at all. The amount we don’t know about climate far outweighs the amount we know, but you wouldn’t get that impression from the IPCC reports.
    If you want to get a real look at the underbelly of the IPCC, you should take a look at how they treat the reviewers comments … which generally is to ignore them. Here is a discussion of one part of the IPCC reports, one among many, many more equally egregious.
    Next, the most “credible alternative” is that we are simply looking at the natural variation in temperature which has gone on for millions of years. See my post “Congenital Climate Abnormalities” for more details.
    Regarding the “how does [the clouds] work”, see my post “The Thermostat Hypothesis“.
    Please let us know what you find wrong in those posts …

  75. There are two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences?
    255 base 10 is 11111111 base 2, takes up eight bits, an unsigned 8-bit byte. And this is as far as they’ve went.
    This indicates low processing power, likely with low memory capacity, very old ways of processing information.
    Obviously they need to modernize. Time to get up to speed with the modern advanced concepts!

  76. R. Gates at 2:22 pm said:
    Being a 25% skeptic…. I had a girl tell me one time she was 25% pregnant… or was it 50%? In either case, I didn’t believe her either. She did eventually have 7 kids.
    I think it was the same reason why the stratosphere…. cools…. then warms…. then cools…. Hey, i’ve never claimed to understand women’s cycles or Venus!
    But as for the stratosphere of Earth cooling – less ozone, increased libido.
    Opps, I meant “albedo” —- I was thinking about HER, again.

  77. Until Republicans gain control of the House and the Senate science isn’t going to matter. When has science ever meant anything to the political left? Al Gore is from the political left. When has science ever mattered to him? There is too much money at stake for these people to let science stand in their way.
    Line up the scientists with their graphs, and studies, and data. The Democrats will not listen. And I’m not all that sure Republicans are going to listen either. So let the Tea Party rise with Sarah Palin!

  78. R. Gates says:
    May 6, 2010 at 2:22 pm (Edit)

    Being a 25% skeptic, I’ve repeatedly asked for the skeptical viewpoint for why one of the major predictions of AGWT is happening, namely: the cooling of the stratosphere. I’ve never received one credible response to this. AGWT states quite plainly that it should occur, as LW radiation is held up by the increasing CO2 in the troposphere, and this is quite easy to understand from a pure physics standpoint. So what do AGW skeptics attribute stratospheric cooling too, if not the trapping of LW radiation in the troposphere by increasing amounts of CO2?

    Well, what seems to have happened is that there is stratospheric cooling after volcanic eruptions, but in between, none … my question is, why is there so little stratospheric cooling?

    Note that, other than immediately after volcanic eruptions, there is no stratospheric cooling at all … why is that? Another of the hundreds of unanswered questions about the climate.

  79. R. Gates says:
    May 6, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    Being a 25% skeptic, I’ve repeatedly asked for the skeptical viewpoint for why one of the major predictions of AGWT is happening, namely: the cooling of the stratosphere. I’ve never received one credible response to this. AGWT states quite plainly that it should occur, as LW radiation is held up by the increasing CO2 in the troposphere, and this is quite easy to understand from a pure physics standpoint. So what do AGW skeptics attribute stratospheric cooling too, if not the trapping of LW radiation in the troposphere by increasing amounts of CO2?

    The question is not whether more long wave radiation is trapped in the troposphere by more CO2 or not, as there is good evidence that it is. The question is whether the energy so trapped is changing the global temperature in a manner that affects climate. Why do ice ages start? Did the CO2 that was warming the earth suddenly disappear? Being able to prove that one variable in an equation of many variables, many of whom are not even known, is the variable controlling the result of the equation is a difficult thing to do.
    When the models see their predictions validated by legitimate temperature measurements, they will begin to have credibility. When the models agree with each other, one goes back to their method of validation. As I believe Dr. Hansen was quoted, it got the same answer as the other models so it must be ok.

  80. the Select Committee on Energy Independence and GLOBAL WARMING” – can’t we start off with something a slightly more neutral?

  81. Spain’s green jobs disaster. Wind farms, other green energy sources caused electricity rates in Spain to skyrocket. To make electricity more affordable for the public, the Spanish government applied subsidies. Now the whole house of cards is collapsing amid a high-energy blame game. Glad it’s happening there, not here (yet).
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/05/obamas-spanish-disaster/

  82. If the global financial crisis resumes, as seems to be happening, that would be a good reason for politicians to at least defer imposing new costs on the economy.

  83. toby said:
    “My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with?”
    As an hereditary peer he is hardly a fake!
    It isn’t just annoying, Toby, that you offer an offhand derogatory remark about someone which has nothing whatever to do with that person’s point of view. but you can’t even get that right.
    I am utterly bored with this kind of immature drivel.

  84. George E. Smith: May 6, 2010 at 10:20 am
    (In reply to toby’s assertion that Lord Monckton was a “fake member of the House of Lords”…)
    And I’m not aware of him ever having claimed to be a Member of the House of Lords; well you are the first I have heard or seen, actually claim that he is; when you branded him as a fake.
    Lord Monckton being a “fake Member” of the HoL is a fairly common theme on the warmista sites. I’ve seen it referenced by most of The Usual Suspects™ and, from what I could glean from the rhetoric, seems to be based on what someone’s second cousin, three times removed, said during a Reply-All e-mail discussion of of the synopsis of a report of an analysis of an interview with a reporter who made an observation during Senate hearings in which Lord Monckton may or may not have appeared sometime between 1965 and 2053.

  85. you know what a expert is ,a drip under pressure . Lord Monckton would make mince meat out of these so called experts

  86. Ref – It’s always Marcia, Marcia says:
    May 6, 2010 at 6:51 pm
    “Until Republicans gain control of the House and the Senate science isn’t going to matter. When has science ever meant anything to the political left? Al Gore is from the political left. When has science ever mattered to him? There is too much money at stake for these people to let science stand in their way. Line up the scientists with their graphs, and studies, and data. The Democrats will not listen. And I’m not all that sure Republicans are going to listen either. So let the Tea Party rise with Sarah Palin!”
    _______________________
    What the good ol’ USA needs is exactly what the Brits just gave themselves, gridlock. It’s a crying shame that the Tea Party isn’t anything more than a bunch of colonials dressed up like Indians (aka Native Americans) throwing a symbolic cup of something into Boston Harbor. The problem problem is that once you elect someone from either Party they get brainwashed and are worthless for two full years. The problem problem problem is the idiots in charge of the two bloody parties that we don’t elect.
    PS: Why don’t we call people from India, ‘Indias’? It would save a lot of ink and keystrokes.

  87. Hopefully there is still enough interest in this thread for the following link to be read and commented on:
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/indicators_technical_info.pdf
    I had posted this to Anthony within the “Tips and Notes” section of WUWT last week, but it best fits within this thread. After reading the attached, I found that the predominate sources for the EPA endangerment finding are from internal USEPA or other governmental research resources, but are predominately from the IPCC. In my my opinion, this document could best be used by those who are wishing to discount, discredit, or otherwise blow out of the water the EPA endarement finding for CO2. Opinions??? (as if readers of this website have opinions, what?)

Comments are closed.