Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

EPA shuts up senior researcher on climate change (guess why?)

First few paragraphs. Article later points out once again BHO quotes and how he does 180 degrees from what he says.
---
Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee
issued an internal critique of the EPA's climate change position.

Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency's greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA's approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have "a very negative impact on our office."

His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject...
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031
 
Same thing is happening at NASA and NOAA.
I personally know of at least 3 guys that where warned (in a very polite, round about way) to either back off or else.
 
Same issue from the Washington Examiner

EPA Suppresses Internal Global Warming Study, CEI Says
By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
06/24/09 6:29 PM EDT

Scientific findings at odds with the Obama Administration’s views on carbon dioxide and climate change are being suppressed as a result of political pressure, officials at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) charge.
“This suppression of valid science for political reasons is beyond belief,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “EPA’s conduct is even more outlandish because it flies in the face of the president’s widely-touted claim that ‘the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.’”
The agency has never made the study public or included it in official reference materials, according to CEI. As part of a recently concluded EPA public comment period on a proposed rule, CEI submitted a set four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, as evidence that the suppressed study included a critique of the agency’s global warming position.
CEI has asked EPA to make the study public and to allow public comments on it. CEI has also asked that EPA to prevent any reprisals against the study’s author who has been employed with the agency for 35 years.
 
Last week HR2454 was 946 pages long. As of Wednesday morning it had burgeoned to 1,201 pages, as various constituencies made backroom deals with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and his cohorts. That blatant vote-buying and sweetheart deal-making is why environmental groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, and the open-government organization the Sunlight Foundation have come out against the bill.
 
Come on now, You know "The One " promised again and again not to raise taxes on his faithful even one penny. He just can't double and triple their utility bills now. It would make me lose faith in him to say the least.
 
The short of it is.

The EPA report is largely based on the IPCC report, which is 3 years old, and full of errors.

1. Global temperatures have fallen for 11 straight years, while CO2 has risen, and accerated.

2. Predicted hurricane activity increase, is now believed to be false.

3. There is no evidence that Greenland will shed it's ice cap, and new evidence doesn't support it.

4. The economic recession has cut CO2 more than the model predicted.

5. Water vapor, which increases with temperature, was modeled as a positive feedback, when it has been shown to be a negative feedback. That means increasing temperatures, will cool the earth because of water vapor. This is a major point.

6. New research shows the solar data used by IPCC was wrong. They now show that up to 68% of global warming is due to the sun. (who would have thunk it) That's major.
 
The short of it is.

The EPA report is largely based on the IPCC report, which is 3 years old, and full of errors.

1. Global temperatures have fallen for 11 straight years, while CO2 has risen, and accerated.

2. Predicted hurricane activity increase, is now believed to be false.

3. There is no evidence that Greenland will shed it's ice cap, and new evidence doesn't support it.

4. The economic recession has cut CO2 more than the model predicted.

5. Water vapor, which increases with temperature, was modeled as a positive feedback, when it has been shown to be a negative feedback. That means increasing temperatures, will cool the earth because of water vapor. This is a major point.

6. New research shows the solar data used by IPCC was wrong. They now show that up to 68% of global warming is due to the sun. (who would have thunk it) That's major.

Deaf ears are so frustrating!
 
Here is a link to the suppressed report. It starts out...

“We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups…as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.” No wonder they tried to shut up senior researcher Alan Carlin.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/epa-plays-hide-and-seek-suppressed-report-revealed/
 
fascism.jpg
 
Here is proof the Senate has all the information needed defeat this illegal unconstitutional legislation. This bill went down in flames in the senate in the last congressional session. It will have more emphasis in this session but I think it can be beat but It is going to take a hurclean effort on the part of "US" in deluging every senator with information they cannot refute and constantly demanding they kill this bill. Washington voters in Reicherts district need to get to work now to find a canditate to replace him and work night and day to get he/she elected, we don't want Darcy Burner and we sure don't want Reichert. Swampy:mad::(


Surely the NYT writers are aware that over 700 dissenting scientists from around the world are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN’s IPCC and Al Gore. A Senate Minority Report gives names, bona fides, and dissenting opinions of each of scientist, many of them former UN IPCC supporters who have now turned against the UN given the wealth of evidence showing a clear disconnect between rising levels of CO2 and the continued warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800s.
If these writers feel competent to write on the subject they should certainly be aware of the “Global Warming Petition Project” where over 31,000 American scientists including 9,000 PhDs have gone on record as opposing the shoddy science that is the feeble spine of the climate alarmist movement. And if they wanted to authenticate the claims of the politicized science on which they are reporting, they might have spent a few minutes on one of the many non-political websites such as scienceandpublicpolicy.org where they would have learned (1) while the IPCC predicts warming between 2.4 and 5.3 degrees Celsius per century, the observed trend over the last 8 years is 1.0 oC per century in the opposite (i.e.,cooling) direction. And the oceans—where 80 percent of the heat was to end up—have been cooling also based on 5+ years of data since the deployment of 3,300 automated bathythermograph buoys throughout the world’s oceans.
 
Here is proof the Senate has all the information needed defeat this illegal unconstitutional legislation. This bill went down in flames in the senate in the last congressional session. It will have more emphasis in this session but I think it can be beat but It is going to take a hurclean effort on the part of "US" in deluging every senator with information they cannot refute and constantly demanding they kill this bill. Washington voters in Reicherts district need to get to work now to find a canditate to replace him and work night and day to get he/she elected, we don't want Darcy Burner and we sure don't want Reichert. Swampy:mad::(


Surely the NYT writers are aware that over 700 dissenting scientists from around the world are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN’s IPCC and Al Gore. A Senate Minority Report gives names, bona fides, and dissenting opinions of each of scientist, many of them former UN IPCC supporters who have now turned against the UN given the wealth of evidence showing a clear disconnect between rising levels of CO2 and the continued warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800s.
If these writers feel competent to write on the subject they should certainly be aware of the “Global Warming Petition Project” where over 31,000 American scientists including 9,000 PhDs have gone on record as opposing the shoddy science that is the feeble spine of the climate alarmist movement. And if they wanted to authenticate the claims of the politicized science on which they are reporting, they might have spent a few minutes on one of the many non-political websites such as scienceandpublicpolicy.org where they would have learned (1) while the IPCC predicts warming between 2.4 and 5.3 degrees Celsius per century, the observed trend over the last 8 years is 1.0 oC per century in the opposite (i.e.,cooling) direction. And the oceans—where 80 percent of the heat was to end up—have been cooling also based on 5+ years of data since the deployment of 3,300 automated bathythermograph buoys throughout the world’s oceans.

Here is video of John Coleman discussing their fraud lawsuit against Al Gore regarding this.

http://www.personalliberty.com/feat...ver-30-000-scientists-for-fraud-john-coleman/
 
Update: Alan Carlin came out with the truth. Carlin has been with the EPA for 38 years. He is the primary author of this study debunking global warming.

His conclusion: "My view is there is not currently any reason to regulate carbon dioxide. Global temperatures are roughly where there were in the mid 20th century. They are not going up. If anything they are going down." [and this with increased CO2 emissions over those same years]

Here's the smoking gun email from the EPA center director to a staffer about Carlin's findings.
"The administrator and the Obama Administration have decided to move forward [with cap and trade] and your comments do not help the legal or policy case to this decision."

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video...vUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/
 
EPA Admits Cap and Trade Won't Work

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began their hearings on the 1,500 page Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation Tuesday, and ranking member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) won a startling admission from Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson. Inhofe produced an EPA chart generated last year during the Senate’s debate of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade legislation. The chart showed that the carbon reductions under that bill would not materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. Inhofe then asked Jackson if she agreed with the chart’s conclusions. Jackson replied: “I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.”

Also, at the hearing, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he did not agree with chart. This is interesting ,since all the best science confirms Inhofe’s and Jackson’s conclusions. For example, a recent study of cap-and-trade by MIT concluded: “The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead…The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation.”

So how is that “developing country participation” going? The New York Times reports from the Group of 8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy: “The world’s biggest developing nations, led by China and India, refused Wednesday to commit to specific goals for slashing heat-trapping gases by 2050, undercutting the drive to build a global consensus by the end of this year to reverse the threat of climate change.” For anyone that has been following the issue, this development should come as no surprise. On June 30th of this year India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told Bloomberg: “India will not accept any emission-reduction target — period. This is a non-negotiable stand.” China has also made it explicitly clear that they view the carbon tariffs in the Waxman-Markey bill as a violation of World Trade Organization rules.

So if other countries will not sacrifice their own economic growth to meet carbon cutting goals, then what is the economic hit Americans are taking? The left is touting a recent Congressional Budget Office study which they say shows Waxman-Markey would only cost Americans $175 a year. However, the left is seriously misrepresenting what the CBO study is. Footnote three on page four of the CBO study explicitly admits: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor.” In other words, the CBO study is not an economic analysis at all. Instead it is a simple accounting of how energy tax revenue that Waxman-Markey collects is distributed. When the economic costs of Waxman-Markey are included, the harm to American families skyrockets. According to Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis Waxman-Markey will decrease GDP in 2020 by $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that is $1,870 that the CBO simply ignores.

All economic pain, for no environmental gain. No wonder the Obama economy is failing.

Quick Hits:

* According to USA Today, counties that supported President Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.
* U.S. authorities are eyeing North Korea as the origin of the cyber attack that overwhelmed government websites in the United States and South Korea.
* He’s already banned spending city money to buy bottled water and mandated composting citywide. Now San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s latest: mandates on healthier food.
* Massachusetts will challenge the constitutionality of the federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
* The Obama administration announced yesterday that it will spend $18 million in additional funds to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/09/morning-bell-epa-admits-cap-and-trade-will-fail/
 
Bet that report didn't take into account the number of companies that will flee the United States, because there's no Cap and Trade in less developed nations. Why in the heck, would you keep your carbon generating infrastructure in this country, where there is a penalty?
 
wow, lot of good info on this page.
We should forward this link to the morons in washington.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top