It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


EPA buries report negating climate crisis

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by bakednutz

This just goes to the rampant agenda that this administration has. To hell with transparency, to hell with hope and change, lets just strangle the truth and get as much power as we can, WHILE we can.

The whole damn lot of them!

Gotta give cudos to the 44 dems that voted against this and show just what side the republicans really ARE on.

I dunno, I find Obama to be pretty transparent. Not in the way he talks about or anything, but I have always been able to see right through him.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by exile1981

I'm not surprised so much as I am shocked that the report surfaced. And the data the report contains is devistating (to say the least) to the whole agenda

Inside job at the EPA. A patriot. Soon to vanish from the face of the earth along with his or her family and pets via black Suburbans.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by Sheeper

Sorry, I'll be clearer, as a life long conservative I felt more anger for those RINO's than I did for the demacrats.

I would expect this from the liberals but from republicans? Yeah, most did vote against it, but those that didn't #'d me off!

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:47 PM
There's nothing in the report that deniers haven't been claiming publicly for years.

But given a number of reports - most saying CO2 causes warming and one saying it does not - how do you know which to believe? Or do you go with the one you want to be right? Which it seems is what most folk are doing in this instance.

Personally I think acidification of the oceans and a need to reduce reliance on Russian gas and Iranian oil are more important reasons to cut GHG emissions - and justify any such plans regardless of any impact on climate.

If we want to cut GHG emissions to stop GW then we stop burning the rainforests - but that won't change our current reliance on Russia and Iran.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by tsloan

Originally posted by mikerussellus
EPA officials buried the report stating that there was nothing in the report that would enhance or support the presidents agenda on the current bill.


I hope this is becoming obvious to even the most rabid Obama supporters now.

Listen this is not a party issue man...This is a government issue...DON'T you see that...? This has nothing to do with any party cause they are the same across the board stop making this about he would or they would or this president wouldn't have or that party would have...This is YOUR government enslaving you...Come on.

On this I agree. McCain would've done the same thing.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by Essan

To be honest, I've always tried to just rely on the science.
I've read the report and felt justified to support it.

Case in point, the left had touted a much watched clip of a polar bear and her cub on a small ice chunk and used that to justify global warming.

What they didn't tell you is that mother bears/cubs go hunting when the ice thaws in the summer. And that was a natural setting and more beneficial to the bears so they could feed themselves.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:08 PM
I just received a reply from the EPA concerning this report. Here it is, in its entirety.


“Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied
are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are
fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision
making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of
the proposed Endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of
voices were heard and an inter agency review was conducted. The
individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the
working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he
submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and
information from that report was submitted by his manager to those
responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact,
some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the
Endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager has allowed his general
views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside
and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency
seminar. And this individual was granted a request to join a committee
that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency
and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a
full range of views on climate science. “ – EPA Press Secretary Adora

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
Harry Reid has announced earlier today that the senate vote on cap and trade (snort) would now take place sometime in September.
I guess that's enough time for them to do damage control. .. .

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

Ok, I understand, I feel the same way, those Republicans that voted for it need to look at who they represent and understand that they went against their own on this one, it is shameful.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Here's the actual report, a pdf file

CEI.ORG.....Competitive Enterprise Institute
CEI, among many other statements denying the seriousness of global warming, has argued that climate change would create a "milder, greener, more prosperous world"

CEI supports eventual elimination of the Superfund to clean up toxic sites.

CEI is also a network member of The Heritage Foundation, Alliance for America, and the anti-Endangered Species Act group

Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI's prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. CEI is also heavily supported by the various Koch brother foundations.
CEI's Adler lobbied Congress to cut off federal funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

On October 29, 1999, CEI and Consumer Alert submitted comments opposing a proposed rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms banning makers of alcoholic beverages from labeling their products with statements about the alleged benefits of "moderate consumption" of alcohol.[12]

In March 2001, CEI joined other similar think tanks and experts for hire (including the American Council on Science and Health, Steven J. Milloy, Dennis Avery, Consumer Alert and the National Council on Public Policy Research) in an open letter criticizing Starbucks for its decision to serve milk products only from cows not treated with genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone."Your action is unfounded, and harms consumers and the environment," they stated.

They are funded by Exxon and others with immediate interests.

They are also:

ANTI-Endangered Species act
ANTI Kyoto
ANTI Envirornmental Regulation
PRO Genetically modified foods and crops
PRO Pharmacuetical companies

They are Monsanto champions.....I am glad that the administration rightly ignored this "science for hire".

These folks are the lowest of the low...willing to BS the public for a price into eating and breathing toxic, genetically modified crap.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by maybereal11]

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:00 PM
Peeps i can assure you that Carbon emissions are not decreasing. They have been steadily increasing and measured doing so for a number of years. Looks and do your research. However I cannot assure that the link between Carbon emissions and global warming is as proportionate as many think it is.
K.S (BSc Env. Sci)

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:10 PM
More CEI gems...

In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith said of global warming: "Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like we’re moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer, easier productivity to agriculture."

In May 2006, CEI's global warming policy activities gained fame as it embarked upon an ad campaign with two television commercials.

These ads promote carbon dioxide and argue that global warming is not a problem. One focuses on the message that CO2 is misrepresented as a pollutant, stating that "it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in... They call it pollution. We call it life."

The other states that the world's glaciers are "growing, not melting... getting thicker, not thinner." It cites Science articles to support its claims.

However, the editor for Science stated that the ad "misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers... by selective referencing". The author of the articles, Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said CEI was misrepresenting his previous research to back their claims. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," he said.

** Starting to see how this works? Money from Exxon...BS Propaganda from them. They are a case study of funded propaganda.

** It took me 5 minutes of research to just scratch the surface and it is ugly and unashamed BS Science for hire.

I could care less about any "report" by CEI.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by maybereal11

I don't dispute the associations. Please read the report and we can argue the salient scientific facts. I'd be happy to debate the contested points in reference to the CO2 issues.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:01 PM
Once again this isn't McCain or Obama...
Your splitting and deflecting a blame that rest on the shoulders of the government of this country...That is one of the biggest problems that has gotten this country right where we are now. Republicans and Democrats can't stop pointing fingers across the row and suck it up and face that facts they are the only two that have been driving this train wreck. That thinking has allowed this government to grow outta control creating departments with-in departments and this agency and that agency. All of which has limited freedoms and taken property rights. My friend you better wake up from your Conservative/Republican mind spell and look around you..Cause pretty soon all those people who wear those neat little (R) and (D) on thier political banners are gonna have it where you can't go use the restroom without a bio-metric scan..or buy a car without paying a "carbon footprint" tax. KNOW YOUR ENEMY

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

I believe that response.

Why do people believe this one report and not the dozens that contradict it?

Because they want to.

Edit: there are loads of books available from Amazon that say much the same as this report. It is not a cover up

(there are also loads of books available from Amazon that say planet Nibiru will hit the Earth in 2003 .....

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Essan]

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by maybereal11

I don't dispute the associations. Please read the report and we can argue the salient scientific facts. I'd be happy to debate the contested points in reference to the CO2 issues.

I get your point Mike, even if they won't.

CEI didn't write the report, so why do they want to slide off topic with complaints they have against CEI. Yes there are politicized bodies with specific agendas trying to move public opinion towards either side of this debate, but if the problem is with the report, what exactly is it about that report they have a problem with? Is there only problem with the fact CEI discovered where the EPA report was hidden, and produced it in public, or is there some problem with the actual report they can produce.

The EPA's claims in response to the controversy are nothing more than damage control. The most important point made by that report is the one claiming the EPA was relying on outdated information to support it's endangerment finding. Or at least that's my opinion.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Ntity]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Ntity]

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Essan
But given a number of reports - most saying CO2 causes warming and one saying it does not - how do you know which to believe? Or do you go with the one you want to be right? Which it seems is what most folk are doing in this instance.

Oh people just believe in what the government tells them, which is of course always the right and the truth. Why would the government lie it its own people
Right? They would never do that! Right?!?!?

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:46 PM
I'm sure it makes sense to some that the CO2 concentrations have decreased due to a slump in the economy. With industries not booming I'm not suprised their polluting less. Of coarse taxing them will make them pollute even less.......because they won't be able to afford to. Just like they already can't. Did they forget the economy is on the verge of collapse already? Or are they deliberately trying to crush it?

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by tsloan

I fully agree with you on this one. I see this in just about every political thread now. Who cares what party is in power? A different party would just mean a different, messed up agenda that is not of the benefit of the Earth nor the living things on it.

Either party is only concerned about making money. Whereas, Bush's concern was making money for the corporations; Obama's concern is for making money for wall street.

Even if CO2 is decreasing, that doesn't mean there's no global warming to be concerned about. If the report is correct then it makes me ecstatic because that means that industry is getting the dang hint finally! And we should keep advocating being responsible when it comes to the environment.

But the only debate is whether or not CO2 has something to do with global warming. There's supposedly proof for both CO2 caused GW and the natural sun cycle causing it.

We can't stop the sun cycle, but even if we can stop the CO2 (or at least significantly decrease it), what your still left with is GLOBAL WARMING.

But, even at that, we still don't if it's a short lived cycle or one that can drastically change our environment for decades.

So, IMO, the only real solution is to continue advocate responsible practices in industry, and also on an individual level. There's nothing we can do about a natural occurrence.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by maybereal11

I don't dispute the associations. Please read the report and we can argue the salient scientific facts. I'd be happy to debate the contested points in reference to the CO2 issues.

Okay...Agreed that CEI did not write the report...they are only spinning it to thier agenda.

As to the two guys who wrote the report they are not scientists or climatologists...they are economists.

As to the science I will let NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, an actual climatologist respond.

Their main points are nicely summarised thus:

a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date,

b) the globe is cooling!,

c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous,

d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…,

e) the recession will save us!,

f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and

g) Scafetta and West’s statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this “evidence”, they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling…

what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it.

The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc.

I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports ...

… Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in