http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCHJULY 3, 2009.The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
...
So much so that one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."
Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)
Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.
...
The Bush administration's great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration's official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.
The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.
Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences."😉 His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCHJUNE 26, 2009.
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
...
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Associated Press
Steve Fielding
.Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotTake an objective look at both sides. I did believe in the greenhouse effect years ago. It made sense to me then as I knew co2 did absorb energy from the sun. What I didn't know then was that as concentrations increase past a certain point in the atmosphere, it becomes less efficient as concentrations increase. The data is flawed. When NASA fixed the software bug the data shows we are cooling somewhat if anything. This is despite the data that was biased by improper sensor placement. For me it is not how many scientists believe this or that, but it is what we need to learn. If we don't the govt will give it too us up the arse without even the courtesy of a reach around.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCHJUNE 26, 2009.
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
...
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administratio nd Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
...
So I guess all those melting glaciers are just our imagination. So everything will be peachy keen from now on if we just ignore it.
And that congressman from Oklahoma is the most knowledgeable and honest person in all of politics.
And the profilic use of semantics is the only proper solution to this problem.
"This is not happening. Let's have a sing song."
Originally posted by caissad4I can only speak of the glaciers in my state which has the biggest ice field in the lower 48. They had just about disapeard due to the drought. The last couple of years has seen a dramatic increase in size due to increased precipitation. They go in cycles as do the polar ice caps. Don't worry though, the polar bears survived a much warmer climate than we see now.
So I guess all those melting glaciers are just our imagination. So everything will be peachy keen from now on if we just ignore it.
And that congressman from Oklahoma is the most knowledgeable and honest person in all of politics.
And the profilic use of semantics is the only proper solution to this problem.
"This is not happening. Let's have a sing song."
Originally posted by joe beyserVenus is scorching hot due to its greenhouse gases.
Take an objective look at both sides. I did believe in the greenhouse effect years ago. It made sense to me then as I knew co2 did absorb energy from the sun. What I didn't know then was that as concentrations increase past a certain point in the atmosphere, it becomes less efficient as concentrations increase. The data is flawed. When NASA fixed the soft ...[text shortened]... we don't the govt will give it too us up the arse without even the courtesy of a reach around.
The solution: use only no-regret policies to tackle global warming; policies that make sense even if there is no global warming at all. Invest in nuclear power, increase funding for research to fusion power and other renewable sources of energy, encourage people to use resources more efficiently (by increasing taxes on petrol and electricity), et cetera.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYea, Obama and company will get right on that. LOL. All the man knows to do is tax electricity and micro manage our energy expenditures. That is the extent of his abilities. I'll just wait and sit back unitl a cap and trade czar is put in place and create an army of EPA officials to decend upon the populace. Perhaps that is what is needed to wake the populace up?
The solution: use only no-regret policies to tackle global warming; policies that make sense even if there is no global warming at all. Invest in nuclear power, increase funding for research to fusion power and other renewable sources of energy, encourage people to use resources more efficiently (by increasing taxes on petrol and electricity), et cetera.
Originally posted by whodeyI think they intend to remotely monitor usage. Fines will be in the mail.
Yea, Obama and company will get right on that. LOL. All the man knows to do is tax electricity and micro manage our energy expenditures. That is the extent of his abilities. I'll just wait and sit back unitl a cap and trade czar is put in place and create an army of EPA officials to decend upon the populace. Perhaps that is what is needed to wake the populace up?
Originally posted by whodeyi wonder how that's going to work out. TWO trillion-dollar stimulus plans AND the drag of a stick-it-to-the-people energy policy. we'll dig ourselves to china!
Yea, Obama and company will get right on that. LOL. All the man knows to do is tax electricity and micro manage our energy expenditures. That is the extent of his abilities. I'll just wait and sit back unitl a cap and trade czar is put in place and create an army of EPA officials to decend upon the populace. Perhaps that is what is needed to wake the populace up?