EPA buries report negating climate crisis

Video on this here, with John Boehner speaking up...

It is a job killer! Even the greenies are not so hot on this...they know it is totally corrupted for special interest!

reply to post by mikerussellus

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. . . :@@

>> I can tell by your response, that you don't have the capacity to understand what you aren't understanding. I'm going to stop talking to you, or risk running against the moderation standards.

If you don't get the explanation this time, then expect me to reply;
30 years of collecting data, that is DURING the 30 year period and getting historical evidence. They aren't saying because it rained excessively this year, then it rained that way a million years ago. They can look at tree rings of cut trees, and see that they grew this much when the got so much water.

Then they can look at older trees, and if it's the same tree, make an assumption that if it's ring is the same size, it likely got the same water.

Then they can look at ice cores, and see how much precipitation fell, and how much ice formed -- same idea. If the ice layer is thinner in a year, then less precipitation. They can tell if it's a year layer, by dust that gets pushed North or South by trade winds. When things warm during the summer, the winds might reverse -- get it? If all factors are equal, they use this data to get rainfall levels.

They use all sorts of sources to look into the past, and look at soil and crystal formations and gas deposits.

The data collected for a millions of years is an extrapolation. It could be wrong. It's also the same data the Global Warming Deniers are using, except they don't have a science background in the correct field, and if you track them back, they are funded by carbon-energy interests. The science isn't perfect, and it's complicated. So it's easy to stir up nonsense because most people don't get data or understand trends.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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]

>> The life in the oceans at that time was nothing we could eat.

Also, the early earth had Ammonia and methane but not much oxygen to breathe -- so you'd be dead in a few hours.

When oxygen-producing algae first appeared, they almost wiped out all other life on the planet. And the earth almost plunged into permafrost as the temperature got cold enough (about 40 below) to freeze carbon dioxide around the globe.

Life slowly crept back. But you do NOT want the organisms taking over that formerly owned this planet.

When the dinosaurs were around, it was hotter. Note, that life was totally different on the planet then.

>> We might not destroy all life, but higher carbon levels is going to be horrible for the plants we grow. N4 plants love warmer nights, and other than soybeans -- they are mostly weeds. N3 Plants, like cooler nights. Those are the ones we eat.

So it isn't just the average temperature, but the needed coolness at night when plants produce oxygen from photosynthesis and create carbohydrates.

Our current course is going to mean mass starvation, human migrations, and flooding. Also, the die-off of a lot of plants and animals.

Sure, animals and ecosystems can adapt over time -- but the rate of change is pretty quick now for that to be anything but horrible for our well-being.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

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

This a very vague and general thing you just said. Are we talking about when we had dinosaurs swimming around in the oceans?

>> There have been fluctuations in CO2. When the oceans were chemically different -- the ocean life was vastly different. Some organisms are still around from earlier epochs -- but not MOST of them.

I don't know where you get your facts, but there is just not time enough in the day to deal with how wrong you are. You are obviously being educated by people with a flimsy or deceptive grasp on earth history.

More CO2 in a green house to help plants is NOT more CO2 on the planet. Any enormous change is going to change things for the worse -- not better. Because we are adapted to THIS environment and all the life systems we depend upon are as well. NO FAST CHANGE IS GOOD. NONE.

The sun is something the climatologists are aware of. All that solar warming crap is just more disinfo. It is anthropogenic factors and that includes the methane produced by cows.

And I had heard the volcano argument many times -- I was stunned to learn humans put out 100 times more. So the sources like Rush Limbaugh that put the meme that humans were a trivial impact, were ignorant or lying. Why would anyone go back to that cesspool to drink once again from his fountain of knowledge? How many times do these pundits have to be caught being ignorant or lying?

Even if humans were a tenth of the output of Volcanoes -- it would still be a huge factor. It's about how much INCREASE you get over time, not just the total amount. If you have a closed system, and only increase 1% of the CO2 each year, then in 100 years, you have 100% more CO2.

Humans are also deforesting vast areas of land. We are filling in swamps to put up resorts on the coastline. The acidification of the oceans has far-reaching impacts. Not the least of which, it might reduce the amount of Oxygen we get. So not only are we increasing carbon -- we are decreasing the natural absorbers of carbon.

It's the year-over-year impacts that are building on each other, and we might come to a trigger event; like arctic permafrost suddenly melting and releasing methane (as it has in Siberia).

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

 

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.

Do you seriously believe that all of the thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW alarmism are paid by oil companies? Seriously?

Do you realise how many major corporations, organizations and governments have vested interests in AGW being a reality? Such as the UN and the IPCC? Or Al Gores carbon trading company?

There are FAR more credible scientists willing to denounce the falsities of AGW alarmism and yes, they also are "very smart and made good grades". They could find funding much easier if they wished to prove AGW was a reality, yet they refuse to promote bad science to recieve more government grants. Look how much funding the IPCC got to "prove" their already decided conclusion of climate catastrophe due to humans, whilst refusing to acknowledge any evidence that goes agains their conclusion. The IPCC is not a scientific panel. Its a political panel. You can see here that the UN has been proposing to introduce global pollution taxes (carbon taxes) for over 15 years, to fund reform of the UN. NOT to combat climate change, although it is a great excuse for them.

How do you figure that AGW alarmists could make more money "pushing around paper"? They are getting paid just fine as it is.

"The people lying to you are getting paid"

Indeed they are.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

 

The sun is something the climatologists are aware of. All that solar warming crap is just more disinfo. It is anthropogenic factors and that includes the methane produced by cows.

So would you be willing to concede that the recent global cooling is due to the recent solar minimum? Or has the anthropogenic greenhouse effect temporarily stopped its driving factor in our climate?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
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...

>> This is painful to read.

You just disproved what you are saying, AND proving anthropogenic sources, and thinking the opposite of the facts you are quoting.

Urban heat islands are created by man-made structures. This doesn't DISPROVE that human structures can absorb more heat, or that global warming is occuring. What you just said, is that the data was sampled away from Urban areas, so that it rules out DIRECT human activities. It does NOT, however, rule out anthropogenic factors affecting the atmosphere, and the destruction of habitats.

>> And yes, the ocean can warm or cool over a long period of time -- evening out sudden spikes in temperature.

Notice, also, that if you have ice sitting next to your glass of water, it doesn't cool it as much as when you drop it in the ice. Some of the cooling we are getting in the past 10 years (which is just a slight trend from the hottest 50 years in recorded human history, that peaked), might be because ice is melting off the North and South poles and sliding into the ocean. So as it melts, it removes some of the heat.

Big snow storms in Siberia, is more snow and wind. IT doesn't mean it is colder. Nor is that the whole planet.

The whole planet might be getting a little cooler at the moment due to Chinese smog. But the disturbing thing is the warming at the poles -- which is very worrisome. IF the poles warm up too much we may lose our convection currents and even the Gulf stream. New York, England and Seattle will freeze, while the temperate regions will get much hotter.

Your local weather will be important to you. That's why Climate Change was the term adopted over "Global Warming" because people don't seem to GET the entire picture -- it's damn complicated. The take-home is; Change is Bad. More change is worse. Stop risking billions of people on the profits of a few robber barons and a cheap tank of gas.

>> Likely, the Green revolution is going to happen. And there will be more jobs and eventually, much cheaper energy. A sustainable lifestyle means less concentration in wealth, and things like walking and small accessible towns that are more self-sufficient. More local small farms. We eat better.

The changes that will make humans have less impact on the earth, are going to be better ways for people to live. We will have higher paying jobs.

Note that all the Carbon-based robber barons, are moving their factories overseas? I mean, what they heck are we trying to save a penny on but the tank of gas that came from a war zone in the Middle East, so that we can drive to the hair stylist? America doesn't make things that much anymore.

The Anti Global Warming is fighting for a status quo that is destroying our health and our spirits, while putting the status quo of the environment up for grabs. The Environmentalists (or Pro Air Breathers), are fighting to change the status quo of robber barons and keep the status quo of the planet.

>> You Chose the Axis and we Chose the Allies.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


-I've had to start/stop this post several different times because, while you call us deniers about the threats of 'global crisis' those of you that can read, can speak, fail to see the data that is right in front of you-

There is no definative proof that CO2 emmisions create global warming. On the contrary, recent data has shown that with the increase, global temps are cooling.

But, of course, climate crisis (or whatever you want to call it) also encompasses global cooling.

This whole thread, though, is about DC. Their attempt to create a 4 trillion dollar 'economy' out of smoke and mirrors. There have been numerous posts about the generated costs as a result of the cap and trade bill. This administration will stifle ANY report that says to the contrary.
Just look at Obamas little 30 minute infomercial about healthcare, brought to you by the good folks at ABC.

We can argue the points on global warming/cooling/climate/issue/heating/using oven mitts in winter silliness all day long.
Good. Fine. I love a good debate.

But when policy is made on data that isn't stable, when policy is made from data that even isn't consistant, that's when every voice needs to speak up and shout STOP!

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Do you seriously believe that all of the thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW alarmism are paid by oil companies? Seriously?

Well obviously the majority are not actually involved in climate research. After allif 10,000 climate scientists signed a petition saying 10 pints of beer a day was good for you, would you believe them or the doctors who disagreed and said it was bad for you?

However, many scientists do dispute IPCC predictions and the emphasis on GHGs over other human activities - such as deforestation, other land use change, contrails etc which certainly do affect climate.

But with a few exceptions, they do not disagree with AGW!

If you disagree with me contact leading 'sceptic' Roger Pielke Sn and let me know what he has to say

Originally posted by Essan
Well obviously the majority are not actually involved in climate research. After allif 10,000 climate scientists signed a petition saying 10 pints of beer a day was good for you, would you believe them or the doctors who disagreed and said it was bad for you?

Well if they had all signed the petition, then I would at least look into the claims, as there would be a reason for them to agree to such an idea. However, there is no such petition, but there is one signed by over 31,000 scientists in USA alone who disagree with AGW alarmists projections of climate catastrophe due to GHG emmisions. They are not all climate scientists, but they would still be able to grasp at least the basic concepts behind the fundementals of AGW.

Originally posted by Essan
However, many scientists do dispute IPCC predictions and the emphasis on GHGs over other human activities - such as deforestation, other land use change, contrails etc which certainly do affect climate

But with a few exceptions, they do not disagree with AGW!

But they do disagree with the extent of AGW alarmists projections. No sane person is going to argue that we have ZERO effect on our climate. We know of the urban heat island effect and that deforestation effects precipitation levels.

So what is your point? Do you agree with the Obama administrations stance on climate change or not?

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

The debate about Global Warming is over -- everywhere but in the USA and amongst people that have bought the Corporate propaganda. There will ALWAYS be fluctuations in the data and uncertainty. The pollution profiteers are paying for that uncertainty and doubt.

IF we wait for the "smoking gun" -- well, it's just smoke. Just like the tobacco industry polluted the debate for years by paying for junk science. The same thing is going on now.

The DEBATE is over.

Now the debate is over what to do.

Cap and Trade worked kind of well in Europe -- but it had its flaws because of oversight.

I think Obama's plan is way to weak. It preserves too many sacred cows and won't do much at all.

We need tariffs regardless, to get Americans building the things we buy -- and in that regard, whether there is globla warming or not, Green changes are good for our economy.

All the nonsense from the right about how economies work is based upon myopic views of multinational corporations and their profits. They are looking out for their interests -- the problem is, that very few, even amongst dems, are looking out for yours. This bill has problems, and that it doesn't go far enough.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

 

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.

Do you seriously believe that all of the thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW alarmism are paid by oil companies? Seriously?
Indeed they are.

Abso-Fricken-Lootly.

Yes.


There are "hundreds" actually. And the first time the AGW group published a list, MOST of the people on it weren't climatologists and, well, MOST didn't know they had signed onto the list.

You really get one shot at showing your true colors. From the get-go it was an industry lobbyist campaign, and now they've gotten a bit more sophisticated and there are more web sites (referencing each other), and there is more echo in the media throwing out doubt.

Maybe some thoughtful, honest people have followed the parade -- but the people who started it, were companies that would be hurt in the pocket book by more efficiency and the US getting off oil. The Military war machine doesn't like it, because they won't get billions to guard the sand in the Middle East.

There are NOT climatologists, that are peer reviewed, on the record saying there is no Global Warming.

Nope. Sorry. You bought a scam. You might as well light up a cigarette because its the same scam all over again. The jury is still out on whether cigarettes cause cancer.

Originally posted by Essan

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.

"Not really that cold"? I think you should re-examine the facts. Fairbanks, AK had an entire Month where Temperatures hovered around -40 Degrees Fahrenheit Below Zero, which is an occurrence that normally only lasts for One to Two Weeks Maximum, but in this instance it lasted for over 1/3 of the entire Calendar based Winter Season. In Fort Yukon, AK, to the NE of Fairbanks, AK, they recorded a Record Low of -80 Degrees Fahrenheit Below Zero. Records were broken ALL over North America, Europe, and in Northern Asia. Record Low Temperatures, Record Snowfall, Record Ice Amounts, you name it. Not only were they "Century Mark" records, but they exceeded the previous marks by considerable margins (In some instances by Weeks, Months, and in the case of Temperatures, by an average of 10-20 Degrees Fahrenheit).

In the case of record Highs on the other instance, they have typically exceeded their "Marks" by only 1-5 Degrees Fahrenheit, and so called "Droughts" have occurred due to Increased Population Densities and Annually Variant Pattern Systems (La Nina, and El Nino). The Record Colds and Snowfall have occurred in SPITE of this however, and therefore they reign far more significant in nature due to such.

BTW, as for China, they had record Early Season Snowfalls and Cold Temperatures, which negates your "Mild Winter" Statement.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Do you seriously believe that all of the thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW alarmism are paid by oil companies? Seriously?

Well obviously the majority are not actually involved in climate research. After allif 10,000 climate scientists signed a petition saying 10 pints of beer a day was good for you, would you believe them or the doctors who disagreed and said it was bad for you?

However, many scientists do dispute IPCC predictions and the emphasis on GHGs over other human activities - such as deforestation, other land use change, contrails etc which certainly do affect climate.

But with a few exceptions, they do not disagree with AGW!

If you disagree with me contact leading 'sceptic' Roger Pielke Sn and let me know what he has to say

You should speak to actual field researchers, and stop depending so heavily upon the idea of pencil pushing lab rats with computer models. It might save your argument somewhat, except for the fact that they have disproven every bit of AGW hype.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Here's a shocker. I actually agree with you to a point.

I think we need to get away from dependance of foreign oil. We need to drill here, ALONG with nuke power, wind power. We need to do it all and do it now. Like the America of old, the company that finds the best, cheepest way, first, gets the money.

All the "climate change" scheme is is to line the pockets of the rich with even more money. I have never been so naive as to believe it even when i was in elementary school many years ago. I was one of few throughout school that actually stood up for the truth. I found back in 4th grade about the other planets having the exact thing. If it is exposed that manmade climate change is not real the people that orchestrated the scheme will try to claim that our "GHGs" traveled through space and affected the other planets as well.

Bernie Madoff got 150 years in jail for ripping billions off of people.

Al Gore should get twice that.

of course that's just my humble opinion, I could be wrong. . . but I don't think so.

The climate has been changing since the beginning of time, long before man was even around.

Finally, scientists opposed to this man created global warming hysteria are being heard around the globe.

The natural cycles of sunspot activity have a huge impact on our weather.

Al Gore is afterall...........a politician. Doesn't that explain a lot?

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Do you seriously believe that all of the thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW alarmism are paid by oil companies? Seriously?

No...I am sure "Scientists" like Perry Mason and the spice girls who apparently signed the pettition are not getting paid by big oil...

This pettition has been raked over and debunked.

So...Seriously? Give me a break.

en.wikipedia.org...
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:

“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.[21]
”

In 2001, Scientific American reported:

“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]

And as far as this particular report...

It was not written by scientists..

It was given more internal consideration than reasonable..no "squashing of the report"

It cited blogs and Astrologers for sources.

See my previous posts for sources.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 1-7-2009 by maybereal11]