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: 4
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan

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.


But THIS government IS currently headed by POTUS Obama, so the OP's labelling does in fact ring tried and true in its nature. It has become a partisan issue, whether you like it or not (At least on "The Hill").




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
.....................
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.
....................


Essan, you keep giving excuses to the lies behind AGW...

Tell us, if CO2 really causes mayor damage by acidification in the oceans how come in times when the Earth's atmosphere had 7 times as much CO2 as now there was plenty of life in the oceans?....

As for reliance on Russian gas, that's a problem that some Europeans have, and they should find a way to solve it, but that way shouldn't have to involve getting all of the people on Earth to stop developing, or stop using any, and all forms of power from carbon sources just because you want to.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Whether or not CO2 is a cause is debatable. Given.

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


Well, actually they don't. In ann avergae year volcanoes produce about 1/100th of the CO2 produced by human activity

climate myths

But in any case, it's the extra year on year net increase that's the issue. If a flood basalt eruption occurred then yes, volcanoes would be more significant. Till then ......

As for no net warming in recent years, anyone heard of the solar minium? The one that some argue is making it colder? (hence no doubt the current heatwaves in the USA, Europe, India and China). Amazing as it may seem, CO2 is not the only factor in global temps.

Besides which, climate is measured over decades.

But some folk - including scientists - conveniently ignore this if it suits their agenda.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Tell us, if CO2 really causes mayor damage by acidification in the oceans how come in times when the Earth's atmosphere had 7 times as much CO2 as now there was plenty of life in the oceans?....


Because life at that time had evolved to exist in more acidic oceans?

It's like arguing why would filling a freshwater lake with salt kill off all the fresh water fish when fish clearly thrive in salty oceans.

Species adapt to their environment. Some can cope with sudden changes, many cannot. Yes, it's happened many, many tomes before - but should humans knowingly cause such an event today when they can prevent it?

Not that it's stopped us buring the rain forests ......



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by awdbawl
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?!............


Sorry, but even "IF" you were an "environmental scientist" it doesn't make you an expert in Climate Change, more so since very often environmental scientists depend on the work of other scientists to reach their conclusions. Since there are several dozen peer-review research that disagrees with the AGW claim, I say you have a bias against this sort of research.

There is no proof what-so-ever that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGW crowd.

BTW, the Sun's activity had been increasing during the 20th century, and the first few years of the 21st century, more than anytime in the past 1,000 years at least, to coincide with the warming on Earth, yet the AGW crowd/scientists were the first ones to dismiss this link, even thou "as far as we know" the Sun constitutes about 98.99% of all matter on the Solar System.

In fact environmental scientists should be aware to the fact that CO2 actually helps the environment. People who own greenhouses often increase the CO2 content in their greenhouse from 500-1,500 to produce more green biomass, hence more yields. Many however contain the amount of CO2 in their greenhouses to low levels because they cannot keep up with the increased yields they would have to harvest with higher levels of CO2.

There are other real problems that "environmental scientists" should get involved with, yet many don't.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Well, actually they don't. In ann avergae year volcanoes produce about 1/100th of the CO2 produced by human activity


You are talking first of all about surface volcanoes, but this does not include CO2 emissions by underwater volcanoes and other natural biological emissions. There is approximately 120 billion tonnes of natural emitting CO2 every year compared to the about 7 billion tonnes released by mankind. Despite the claims of the AGW crowd, natural emissions of CO2 are by far greater than anthropogenic emissions.



Originally posted by Essan
As for no net warming in recent years, anyone heard of the solar minium? The one that some argue is making it colder? (hence no doubt the current heatwaves in the USA, Europe, India and China). Amazing as it may seem, CO2 is not the only factor in global temps.

Besides which, climate is measured over decades.

But some folk - including scientists - conveniently ignore this if it suits their agenda.


Have you ever heard the fact that the oceans absorb extra heat during times of high solar activity, and it takes a while for this extra heat to be released into the atmosphere?

No doubt, like always, you like to leave out the fact that this winter lasted longer than normal, and for the past 3 winters at least throughout most of the Earth there have been some of the worse winters to have occurred in a long time. Some countries have experienced the worse winters in decades, and in the case of China, the worse winter in about 100 years.

Yes, it is true that some people, and even scientists, love to "conviniently ignore" certain facts when it suits their agenda...


[edit on 30-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Because life at that time had evolved to exist in more acidic oceans?

It's like arguing why would filling a freshwater lake with salt kill off all the fresh water fish when fish clearly thrive in salty oceans.


Not really, there have been plenty of times when atmospheric CO2 has changed, yet life in the oceans remained pretty much the same.

One more thing...in case you haven't noticed, the oceans are still salty... there hasn't been any sudden conversion from salty water to fresh water....

As i remember, there have been at least two times, one about 4,000-6,000 years ago, and the second about 12,000 years ago when the poles had receeded a lot more than now, yet there was no "massive ocean die-offs".


Originally posted by Essan
Species adapt to their environment. Some can cope with sudden changes, many cannot. Yes, it's happened many, many tomes before - but should humans knowingly cause such an event today when they can prevent it?

Not that it's stopped us buring the rain forests ......


There has not been any "sudden increase" in CO2... It has taken quite a while for CO2 to increase, and most of it has been due to "natural" reasons, and not because of mankind.

BTW, about the rainforests, perhaps you should demand your own governments in Europe to sign a law to ban all wood from illegal deforestation like was done in the U.S. at the beginning of 2008.

Also, demand for countries like Brazil to enforce their laws to stop the chopping of wood from rain forests... But I guess instead some people demand the U.S. to do it, and for the western world to go back to the Middle Ages "right now" instead of actually asking for the root of the problem to be taken care of....


[edit on 30-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
BTW, one more thing which i have posted about in the past. Sometimes even NASA has released some danming evidence against the claim that the warming is being caused by anthropogenic sources.


Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Hopefully this comes out big in the next couple days with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid dictatorial climate change bill still in the works. Senator Inhofe is calling for an inquiry into why this report was suppressed. Why would the EPA censor themselves if it weren't for pushing a single agenda dictated by Obama and the rest of his regime? Transparency? I don't think so.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
There is approximately 120 billion tonnes of natural emitting CO2 every year compared to the about 7 billion tonnes released by mankind.


I don't suppose you have a geological reference to that?


No doubt, like always, you like to leave out the fact that this winter lasted longer than normal, and for the past 3 winters at least throughout most of the Earth there have been some of the worse winters to have occurred in a long time. Some countries have experienced the worse winters in decades, and in the case of China, the worse winter in about 100 years.


Although parts of China also had their mildest winter in 150 years
India also had a record hot winter. And over half the USA had average or above average temperatures last winter. So not really that cold.

The idea that we're not yet seeing the effects of cooling from reduced solar activity is in my opinion totally wrong. Whilst the oceans may not have cooled, the land and the atmosphere have. Just as in summer the land and air warm much quicker than the oceans - which then remain warm after the land and air have caught their autumn chills.

But the question remains: why do some people know that one report telling them what they want to hear (co2 has no effect) is right whereas all the others telling them what they do not want to hear is wrong? Maybe their god told them?

Fact is, govts are using GW as an excuse for taxation. Were it cooling they'd be using that instead. And any legislation will not make a blind bit of difference to our impact on climate anyway. But that doesn't change the fact that human activities (of which burning fossil fuels is but one) are affecting our weather and climate.

Of course, whilst we all argue about CO2 and GW, global precipitation pattern change (also caused by human activities) is leading to more and more droughts threatening food production from Australia to Canada, Argentina to India. Another inconvenient truth Gore and his pals like to ignore.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
This is such good news! I'm going to go start my car & leave it running in the driveway for a week to celebrate. I think everyone else should do the same.

If you don't own a car, just go burn a pile of plastic-based garbage or raw coal in your yard instead.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I would like everyone to start contributing. . . . . .


. . . . . . . . .to global warming!



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The article is linked on Drudge this morning. So i'm sure alot of people are going to see it. The words "inconvient truth", comes to mind. and I find it greatly amusing.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
(As stated in the preface by these two evil EPA researchers who don’t agree with the status quo)

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, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.


IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
See link below
www.ipcc.ch...


www.warwickhughes.com...
This link tries to remove some of the garbage that the GW crowd has been spouting by using science to debate rather than half factual data . Too much information for me to type, but it is an interesting site if you are one that is not convinced that we are about to go the way of the dodo.


CCSP
Climate Change Science Program
www.nsf.gov...

Just briefly read their website. Cute. They spout the whole party line about GW and state that global warming is derived from data sometimes collected over thousands, millions of years. In the footnote though, they say they took data over a 30 year period.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
do you think billy mays died because of michael jackson



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
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?



>> It's not "silencing" a report, if;
1) it was not asked of the man to make it.
2) This person was not qualified in the science he is commenting on -- and that's clear.
3) You have other, conclusive reports written by people that actually were asked and were qualified.

This is like having the Janitor at the school write up a report on education, and then the principle asks him not to distribute his report to all the parents. Is he being silenced? No. He is being told to get back to mopping floors or leave.

This guy lifted his material from contrarian sites -- this isn't any new or researched data at all -- he isn't the author. Pure, unadulterated astro-turf.

I expect this guy to get a job, going on tour talking about how his reports are being silenced by the Obama conspiracy.

And the people who already believe GW is a hoax, are going to lap it up. The same people who don't believe in science when it works against their world view, and then believe it when convenient. I'd laugh if these people weren't constantly pressed into service, to oppose their own best interests, like screaming for consumption taxes to replace income taxes.

A damn dangerous stampede of fools.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 





CCSP
Climate Change Science Program
www.nsf.gov...

Just briefly read their website. Cute. They spout the whole party line about GW and state that global warming is derived from data sometimes collected over thousands, millions of years. In the footnote though, they say they took data over a 30 year period.



>> Arg.

I'm suppressing the urge to scream. Since the scientists are NOT ALIVE millions of years ago, and the study is done on present day earth -- of COURSE they are sampling data over a 30 year period.

The collection of data, is things like ice cores and matching that up with data you collected in the past 30 years. If some reading in the ice jibes with some reading millions of years ago, you try to extrapolate.

That's the best we can do until a time machine is built.

Or, like the Anti-Global Warming Crowd often does, you can just get in a box and pretend you are going back in time, and that there is no Global Warming. As long as you bring the covers up over your head, the monster in the closet can't get you.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by mikerussellus
 





CCSP
Climate Change Science Program
www.nsf.gov...

Just briefly read their website. Cute. They spout the whole party line about GW and state that global warming is derived from data sometimes collected over thousands, millions of years. In the footnote though, they say they took data over a 30 year period.



>> Arg.

I'm suppressing the urge to scream. Since the scientists are NOT ALIVE millions of years ago, and the study is done on present day earth -- of COURSE they are sampling data over a 30 year period.

The collection of data, is things like ice cores and matching that up with data you collected in the past 30 years. If some reading in the ice jibes with some reading millions of years ago, you try to extrapolate.

That's the best we can do until a time machine is built.

Or, like the Anti-Global Warming Crowd often does, you can just get in a box and pretend you are going back in time, and that there is no Global Warming. As long as you bring the covers up over your head, the monster in the closet can't get you.


If you can't corelate data enough to define what your hypothesis is, then either change your hypothesis or scrub the research. Don't say. . . "Well if the past thirty years is like this, then the 7 billion years must be the same. . . "

I might as well say that because it didn't rain yesterday, that we are in a ten thousand year drought! Please send me money! Let me tax you! (That'll make it rain. . . :@@



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
This is a report that was nothing more then comments made about the EPA, by the NCEE. Which is nothing more then a private organization, not affiliated with the EPA.

This has nothing to do with the epa hiding or covering up anything. Just ignoring some comments made by some small and unknown organization that have nothign to do with the price of rice, and who knows what personal agenda this organization really has.


That is like saying the EPA is covering up ATS comments about global climate change and it is wrong for not heeding our coments.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Ntity
 


Obama's environmental regulations are a pale second to regulations that Clinton put out and that the "Clear Skies" initiative, mostly gutted.

Where did people get the idea that they are going to get cheaper gasoline, and electricity in their houses if they got rid of environmental regulations? Probably from the PR departments and lobbyists on TV -- much as the "on no!" prices will rise because we don't dump things in the air. Even if that were true -- you pay far more for dirty air than you do for cheaper gas. Save a penney now, lose a dollar later. Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are costing us now, in interest on the debt purchased by China. And soon they will be borrowing money, just to pay the debt interest. Soon, the payments on interest on our debt will be as much as the military costs.

That isn't due to Obama's bailout -- that was in the cards when we were cutting taxes and short changing the environment. It all went into executive bonuses. The stimulus package, will probably mean MORE revenue into our tax base. But to explain that, I'd have to undo all the corporate propaganda that has people thinking that education costs money but bombs don't.

You will be charged by the marketplace -- as much as you are willing to pay. And the rest is going to wages, costs, profits, and executive compensation.

While everyone was TOLD the auto unions were getting $75 an hour, it was a lie. The average new worker makes $28 an hour -- three dollars more than the non-union worker. The news media lied to everyone, by rolling in the cost of retirement and health benefits. Remember that pensions are actually the money OWNED by the employee. The company gets a benefit by using that money -- but it doesn't own it. So pay-outs of pensions due workers is not salary.

The cost of labor in a Ford car is 10%. The cost of executive compensation is 40%. All we heard about is what concessions workers were going to make.

Why do you think we get lied to in order to make Unions look bad and cover up the excesses of executives?

>> The companies paying for lies to be spread, so you don't realize that global warming is taking place, are doing it for a reason. Being forced to go to the gas pump and have a fleet of cars that get no more Miles to the Gallon than did the Model T (and it used alcohol), means more money for them.

These people lying to you are getting paid.

The scientists who say there is global warming -- and their are thousands. Are very smart and made good grades. They could have made MORE money pushing around paper. So keep that in mind when you listen to corporate shills and Bill O'Reilly or Neal Bortz.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join