It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Only one thing is absolutely certain here - there will be major changes at EPA (look for people to start stepping down or being forced out soon). Too many people stand to make money on Cap and Trade.




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I'm sorry I believe c02 emissions, factory pollutions, etc are a real problem. I'd be willing to bet none of you are environmental scientists. Seems like you people are just as corrupt because when it comes to money, you don't want to take the necessary steps to help the environment. There have been drastic climate changes that have occurred coincidentally since the industrial revolution, are you claiming big businesses degrading the environment has virtually no impact?! You might as well give them the go ahead to continue with the unregulated destruction that occurs in third world nations and has occurred all throughout the world until laws were put in place for our health. Just because somethings a law doesn't mean its bad. Seems like you guys will believe any kinda bs Alex Jones spews especially when the truth impacts your wallets. And whether or not you agree with increased costs, its pretty ignorant to deny what industries have done to the environment. Alex Jones likes to insult every presidential candidate, especially anything having to do with "Clintons". But we had to vote for one of them. I didn't see him running. I'd like to see that nut make it to the primaries. It seems to me if it wasn't for ignorant people like him brainwashing people, we'd have Hillary Clinton for president and as far as I recall her husband made a pretty damn good president, things were doing pretty well in my opinion. I could care less who gets in his pants. Hillary Clinton sounded to me the most qualified. It's sad that people refuse to see the obvious because of brainwashing. Fact is anyone can come up with a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo doesnt mean its accurate or legit.



[edit on 29-6-2009 by awdbawl]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by awdbawl
 


No - I am not an environmental scientist, and I'm willing to bet that YOU aren't either, however the authors of this report ARE. This is the same group that holds up massive building projects because of owls and newts - and THEY say that Global Warming is BS and that the Globe is, in fact, COOLING. So, in short, I agree with you - lets listen to the environmental scientists. These scientists who say that there is no appreciable temperature change from 1978 - 2008, and as it says on page 86 of the report: "since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and concentrations are increasing have accelerated... And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there's been no net warming in the 21st Century, and more accurately, a decline." - So, at the same time that we have been BOMBARDED by publicity telling us that Global Warming is "out control" and that we're getting close to a "tipping point", the Environmental Scientists are saying the opposite is actually true - the Earth is cooling and the trend is expected to continue for years into the future (most likely due to normal solar cycles).



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Good on 'em... And they only had to kill a slew of folks to keep people distracted from this one...

Oh yeah, and just ignore the scientists that have been screaming from the rafters about this for years now.

Good thing about it is that if the Christians are right, these people, Obama included, will burn in hell.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
We only vaguely understand Earth's meteorology based on the scientific observations of a mere 200 years, but the fact is that the data we DO have — based on deep core samples and geologic indicators — suggest that our planet has endured MANY drastic climate changes over the ages, and that Life DOES NOT CAUSE climate change. If anything, Earthly climate change is always precipitated by solar radiation and seismic upheaval. Life either adapts to the change or it falls to extinction, but Life DOES NOT and CANNOT spontaneously change the climate.

There is NO data to prove that Life in general or Mankind specifically is capable of triggering climate change.

Current arguments offered by the foaming manmade global warming theorists can be likened to an argument based on a single snapshot of a forest fire. The theorists assess the snapshot they see — trees, flame, and smoke — and somehow arrive at the backwards conclusion that smoke CAUSES fire that in turn consumes the forest.

I mean, that's just how fragile is the logic behind manmade global warming theory. It's so fragile, in fact, that warming theorists have repeatedly been caught falsifying evidence — as with Al Gore's infamous "hockey stick graph" — or sweeping contrary evidence under the carpet and persecuting those who dare to dissent.

As has been said all along, all we need do is follow the money to see who benefits from the manmade global warming hoax. The U.S. House of Representatives has just rammed through its approval of the largest and most damaging taxation bill in the history of the United States, a bill so detrimental and unconstitutional that our Congress does not want the American people to review it or voice their opposition to it.

Congress is going to steamroll this bill into law, against the will of the people, initiating a massive flow of additional cash from taxpayers into government coffers.

Follow the money.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Whether or not CO2 is a cause is debatable. Given.

Volcanoes, however, emit (during eruptions) more CO2 than man could ever produce.

One salient point, though, Lets just say, for a moment, that the report is bunk. Lets just say, for a moment that the people that made the report are as stupid as, oh, I dunno, politicians.

The fact that the administration (and I already stated McCain would have probably done the same) COVERED IT UP is the take home message here.

They could give a sh# about global warming/climate change whatever you want to call it.
They care about taxes, money, power, weakening the middle class, and destroying the social/economic infrastructure of this country.

Didn't mean to repeat too much of what you just said, Doc.



[edit on 29-6-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


C02 being a cause is an irrelevant point.
Mankind isn't responsible for even a notable amount of C02 in the atmosphere.
Rain is.

Edit - Didn't mean to come off argumentative. I'm agreeing with you. In a weird way.
This is one of those subjects that gets me a little riled.



[edit on 29-6-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


C02 being a cause is an irrelevant point.
Mankind isn't responsible for even a notable amount of C02 in the atmosphere.
Rain is.

Edit - Didn't mean to come off argumentative. I'm agreeing with you. In a weird way.
This is one of those subjects that gets me a little riled.



[edit on 29-6-2009 by JayinAR]


Granted. But apparently, CO2 is the new punching bag/golden goose of the environmental movement. Solar flares, volcanoes, probably have had more of an impact in the last 50 years than man has in the past 500.

. . . .but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. . . (Thanks Dennis Miller)



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


If I'm not mistaken, the figure is like 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been placed there through the weathering of rock around the world.

Mainly by wind and rain.

But yeah, we're speaking the same tune here.

Man, people (in general) are too damned dumb to see this, though and they are going to step in line to pay more and more taxes until one day...

BAM!!! All hell will break loose.

What is the breaking point?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Hell, I thought that last year would've been it with 4 to 5 bucks a gallon, but the majority of people still pay, gripe a little, tuck their heads in their little shells and keep on moving.
Obama and co. are pushing the envelope and one day it will push back. Just keep having Pelosi et al passing these insane bills, have them try to stifle the 1st, the 2nd ammendments, and we'll find out the breaking points of the American people.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TSZodiac
Only one thing is absolutely certain here - there will be major changes at EPA (look for people to start stepping down or being forced out soon). Too many people stand to make money on Cap and Trade.



As opposed to all the industry lobbyists who did favors while in office and are now going to get Cush, 6-figure jobs from the companies they helped?

I'll bet you all that the report got "squashed" because anyone reading it would know that it was a big wet smooch on the rear of the Big Carbon Industry. The fools who watch Hannity and Fox, are always feeling the victim, even when they were on top calling everyone a terrorist for not trusting Dear Leader, and even while they are accusing anyone who might think Obama is OK of worship.

The Oceans are getting more acidic -- it's a simple, non-controversial thing to test PH balance -- not like trying to measure the globe where you have to calculate all the temperatures everywhere. How are the oceans absorbing more CO2 if there isn't more in the atmosphere?

If this one person at the EPA, had a well researched investigation on Carbon -- then why isn't it corroborated around the world? This nonsense that scientists would spend 8 years of their life or more, to take the post graduate work to become scientists, so that they can lie for a fraction of what industry fools can make is ridiculous.

The last time we had a conspiracy of most of the world's doctors lying in unison is when the tobacco companies paid all the respiratory specialists to do so.

Fox News has won the right to lie in court -- there is absolutely, nothing on their show that forces them to tell the truth. They can make up the whisteblower whole cloth, or ignore his background and pitch soft balls. It's all infotainment and the product they sell very successfully is ignorance and rage. Unfortunately, CNN and other shows aren't much better.

But this conspiracy to hide a decrease in carbon dioxide -- I'll wait until some reputable source comes around. That would mean; nobody from Fox and least of all, some hack from the EPA who got hired by BushCo.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Oh hey, it didn't take me long to find the smelly roots of this one;



It turns out that the report, written by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, is drawn heavily from the contrarian blogosphere, especially Ken Gregory of the Calgary-based "astroturf" group Friends of Science. And in one case, a lengthy "analysis" of a recent peer-reviewed paper has been lifted, without attribution, straight out of World Climate Report, the climate "news" blog run by uber-contrarian Pat Michaels.


Now, of course, the Corporate-leaning conservatives, might not like Daily Kos, who covers this pretty well. But I read certain sites that have a track record of getting things right. So perhaps I'm biased.

Here's the link and they give some good background; LINK





>> I'm getting too good as smelling the astroturf. I hope that some day it will help me earn some money.
Just for starters, the contrarian report that CBS accuses the EPA of 'suppressing' revives the old zombie lie that a warming sun is to blame for global warming, except when it's not, then the earth is actually cooling. There’s no need to point out that the sun, the most studied object in the universe after earth itself, shows no signs of doing anything of the sort, nor is there any point in presenting data showing unequivocally that the earth is not cooling unless one conveniently cherry picks an interval right after the hottest year on record. Because -- now follow along Republican boys and girls -- the sun can’t be the cause of global warming on a cooling earth. The rest of the so-called suppressed report is just as bad if not worse. Excluding nonsense heavily plagiarized from energy industry front groups is not an example of suppression. It’s an example of rightful rejection.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Over the years I've read treatises by perfectly reputable scientists — using the same data as the manmade global warming advocates — who arrive at completely different if not diametrically opposed conclusions.

I mean, as far back as the 1970s, I recall reading a strange little report on carbon monoxide levels in deep mining operations. See, I was paying attention even back then. The report drew a bizarre correlation between CO levels down in Colorado mines and Atlantic hurricanes... Apparently, every time a full-fledged hurricane formed in the Atlantic, CO levels inexplicably increased in Colorado mines. Every time.

Or could it be that increased CO levels in Colorado mines caused Atlantic hurricanes? A matter of perspective?

Another more recent report — within the last decade — optimistically suggested that manmade pollution was actually reflecting about 10% of solar radiation back into space, thereby shielding the Earth from a solar-system-wide warming trend, and thus reducing Earth's ambient temperature. So, theoretically, if we throw ourselves into scrubbing our atmosphere squeaky clean, we may be dropping our solar shields at precisely the wrong time.

Manmade pollution destroys Humanity or saves Humanity? A matter of perspective?

Yet another even more recent report addressed the very apparent decline and break-up of Antarctica's western ice shelf. This report surprisingly exposed the existence of a far more likely cause of Antarctic meltdown, and it has nothing to do with manmade greenhouse gases. There just so happens to be a range of active volcanoes beneath Antarctica's western ice shelf.

Gee. I can understand misinterpreting the evidence, but how in the hell do you sweep volcanoes under the carpet?

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Why would this bill affect food? Whens the last time yuos aw a can of caned carbon?lol....well thier is soda and seltzer water, both carbonated****but i dont think its actually carbon dioxide. So becuase a plant taht we eat, absorbs carbon dioxide, and its released back into the atmosphere, using standard harvesting procedures..aka hadn or machine opicked..that is a cause for global alarm as well, accirding to obama?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Why would this bill affect food?


Price of fuel goes up; farmers are compelled to comply with new CO2 emissions guidelines (which costs a TON of money); cost of planting and harvesting goes up; cost of processing and packaging goes up (costs more to produce same amount of food); cost of distributing product goes up; increased marketing costs (consumers are reluctant to buy, so marketing is ramped up)...

All of these increases are passed to you, the consumer. So, next time you buy a $9.00 banana, thank your U.S. Congress for their climate-consciousness..

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Why would this bill affect food? Whens the last time yuos aw a can of caned carbon?lol....well thier is soda and seltzer water, both carbonated****but i dont think its actually carbon dioxide. So becuase a plant taht we eat, absorbs carbon dioxide, and its released back into the atmosphere, using standard harvesting procedures..aka hadn or machine opicked..that is a cause for global alarm as well, accirding to obama?


The tax is on any fuel or electricity source.

Tractors use fuel which does release CO2 so every farmer will pass on his added tax to the consumer.

The tin cans you eat out of are made out of metals smelted in electric forges... which uses electricity.

The trucks that move your food use fuel... which is taxed.

The grocery store uses electricity.

Everyone of those payers is going to pass the taxe burden down the line to the consumer, unless you think farmers are going to start working for free?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


To be frank, your arguements are off base. If it (the reports, the results) are so off base then why did they hide it? Why did they try to silence it?

They
Don't
Care
About
Global
Warming

Period.

They just want to raise taxes.They just want to control more.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


They just want to raise taxes.They just want to control more.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?



Because some people just don't get it. These bone heads (in govt) don't care about anything other then their own distorted agendas and/or pocket lining. But some people are still under the delusion that the fed. is intelligent, caring, and gives a dam about us. Many people will never get it, and if they do get it, by then it will be too late. This goes for the previous administration, also. They were no better. But change, i think not.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by elcapitano75]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by elcapitano75]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Oh hey, it didn't take me long to find the smelly roots of this one;


Sorry to pick you out of the crowd guy, but seen as the critique of the report is generally pretty much the same from all who posted some here, I might as well just grab one representative, and group a rebuttal in one direction.

Basically the critique of the report goes like this "OMG there are smelly bloggers, climate skeptics and non-peer reviewed research cited in this report."

This is true, and here's why. The review period of this EPA report was rushed through to build a foundation to support the vote on the coming cap and trade bill which was also being rushed through.

Carlin and Davidson had to complete their report in 4 days.

The main point of that report was to show how the information the EPA was relying on up to that point was outdated, and incomplete. In the short period the two had they went to where the information was most accessible. Citations and directions to peer review can be found at many if not most of those locations. In fact here's one that (not a real climatologist, but computer modeler) Gavin Schmidt mentions in a quote from an earlier post here. Check the citations at the bottom of the article.

I'll give you an even better example of peer review citations at the sources Carlin and Davidson reference in their report.

C&D cite the NIPCC. Here's what that is...


The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.


NIPCC Report

Here's what it does...


The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.


So you see the peer review literature is represented, but because of the unprecedented short time limit enforced here, many of the citations given are more like links to links lists.

BTW there are also direct citations to peer review in the report, in spite of what the increasingly desperate representatives of climate hysteria propaganda have led you to believe.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
But it's not just food.

Look around you, wherever you are. Everything that meets your eye is probably manmade. You're peering into a computer screen, surrounded by a domicile full of furniture and personal belongings.

Every. Thing. You. See. Is. Manufactured. Somewhere.

This carbon bill impacts industry, it impacts the manufacturing process, it impacts anything that requires carbon-based fuel or that emits carbon-based exhaust.

As far as we know, Life on Earth relies on two things: Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide. Most complex animals inhale air for its Oxygen and then expel Carbon Dioxide. Most plants consume Carbon Dioxide and expel Oxygen gas.

Hm. Nice set-up. Everything seems to rely on everything else. Wow. Is this indicative of intelligent design?

No, this isn't the place for a discussion of Creationism. I'm always amused when I hear people cheering God's gigantic foresight in creating a Nitrogen-Oxygen atmosphere on Earth at the perfect temperature and pressure for us to survive! Wow!

As if our species originated somewhere else, and the planet needed to be terraformed and meteoroformed, customized to sustain us. That's a sweet little conspiracy in itself.

Anyway. Back on topic...

The upshot of this climate-change bill is BLAMMO they're trying to create a new economy right before our eyes. Look at all the signals — it's happening. China is calling for a new global currency, American government is busily redistributing its wealth, and our legislators are crafting a carbon-based economy and shoving it in our faces — or holding its sharp edge to our throats.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 6/30/2009 by Doc Velocity]



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join