Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have 406,015 members! Join today to learn, network, laugh, and share with nurses.
| No. 3 |
Jul 01, 2009, 09:34 AM
Updated
Jul 01, 2009 at 09:35 AM by heron
| | No. 4 |
Jul 01, 2009, 10:12 AM
Re: Paper skeptical of global warming suppressed by EPA
The article I linked, and I used CBS, instead of Fox, for good reason, includes information that the Bush Admin also did some of the same. That is not the issue. The issue is that scientists are not all on board with this global warming idea; in fact, the cap and trade in Europe is starting a reversal process because it's caused very high unemployment and "shock" isn't working. People like Al Gore and Leonardo di Caprio, who are not scientists or even close, get on the circuit and act as if they know it all and are authorities. Some of the pictures in Al's movie were not photos at all, but digital depictions of what "Might" happen. And he used the work of someone to whom he did not give credit! Don't we as students get into big time trouble for that?
Once again, there is no transparency as we have been promised... We were promised that things would change, and here is more proof that it's not changed at all.
| | No. 5 |
Jul 01, 2009, 10:20 AM
Re: Paper skeptical of global warming suppressed by EPA
OK, so I'm reading 2 main questions here ...
Is global warming a tenable theory?
Is cap and trade a reasonable way to deal with carbon emissions?
Which one are you addressing?
Your point about transparency is telling ... imho, we need to keep the admin's feet to the fire on this one. Way too easy for a bureaucracy to justify it's actions by limiting access to information about those actions.
| | No. 6 |
Jul 01, 2009, 10:27 AM
Re: Paper skeptical of global warming suppressed by EPA Originally Posted by heron OK, so I'm reading 2 main questions here ...
Is global warming a tenable theory?
Is cap and trade a reasonable way to deal with carbon emissions?
Which one are you addressing?
Your point about transparency is telling ... imho, we need to keep the admin's feet to the fire on this one. Way too easy for a bureaucracy to justify it's actions by limiting access to information about those actions.
To me they are part and parcel. Global warming is a theory at best and is being disproven day by day. As such, cap and trade won't fix it and will cause more problems; those pesky unintended consequences.
Absolutely the feet must be kept to the fire, regardless of who is in charge.
| | No. 7 |
Jul 01, 2009, 10:35 AM
Re: Paper skeptical of global warming suppressed by EPA
I find the evidence for the reality of global warming is more good than bad. In any case, it makes common sense to me to think in terms of possible consequences. If the theory is correct or close to it, the possible consequences of continuing as we are look pretty devastating. The consequences of curbing the questionable behavior at least until proven one way or another would be to preserve a balance that we already know is a good one.
An analogous question would be ... should a drug company prove the safety of a new drug or should we just go ahead and take it and see who dies?
As for cap and trade ... just looks like a way of saying we're addressing the theoretical problem without actually doing anything more than creating a new marketplace.
| | No. 8 |
Jul 01, 2009, 10:59 AM
Re: Paper skeptical of global warming suppressed by EPA
Alan Carlin, who wrote that so-called "suppressed" paper is NOT a scientist but an economist.
Mediamatters has more facts about the misinformation being spread around: Fox & Friends embraces falsehood undermining "hushed up" EPA report
Excerpt: ..the June 29 FoxNews.com article about the controversy stated that "[a]n EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday [June 29] that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included 'no original research' in his report." The article also quoted an official statement from the EPA that included a similar claim about Carlin: The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.
"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," the statement said. "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." .
.
Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a June 26 RealClimate.org post that in reading the internal EPA document that Carlin co-authored, "[o]ne can see a number of basic flaws [in its main points]; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution." Reporting on possibly "suppressed" EPA document, CBS suppressed actual climate science Excerpt: In a June 26 CBSNews.com article reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency "may have suppressed" an internal report on climate change, senior correspondent Declan McCullagh uncritically reported the document's false claim that, in the article's words, "global temperatures have declined for 11 years." McCullagh identified that claim as one of "a number of recent developments [one of the document's authors, EPA researcher Alan Carlin] said the EPA did not consider" before it submitted a key finding that could lead to EPA regulation of carbon dioxide. In fact, the claim that "global temperatures have declined for 11 years" is simply not true. Annual global average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years, and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period -- including a decline in each of the past three relative to the year before -- climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Niño and La Niña -- to which they attribute the recent relatively cooler temperatures. | | No. 9 |
Jul 01, 2009, 11:21 AM
Updated
Jul 01, 2009 at 11:56 AM by VivaLasViejas
Re: Paper skeptical of global warming suppressed by EPA Originally Posted by heron
As for cap and trade ... just looks like a way of saying we're addressing the theoretical problem without actually doing anything more than creating a new marketplace.
Not to mention new taxes and new ways to flimflam consumers out of more of their hard-earned money.
I've had it up to my hairline with politicians talking about "green" this and "green" that. Every time one of 'em uses that word, it takes more "green" out of my wallet, and I didn't have much to start with. I'm already fed up with "green" products that cost twice as much and work half as well, paying ever-higher electric bills, not being allowed to use my fireplace on foggy, damp, cold days........and now we're going to have even more regulation and more expense, all because of a phenomenon whose existence is as yet unproven, and which may or may not be affected by anything we do.
And just in case anyone here is naive enough to think that skeptics of the global warming theory are NOT suppressed, there's the story of George Taylor, a once-well-respected scientist and weather guru who served us for years as Oregon's state climatologist.........at least until he had a run-in with our environmental Chicken Littles, which included Governor Kulongoski (who, it must be mentioned, never met a "green" initiative he didn't like). George is smart. George is educated. George has decades of experience. George is unconvinced that global warming is a) actually happening, and even if it is, it's b) probably part of the earth's natural cooling and warming cycles that occur every few hundred years.
Alas, George is also no longer our state climatologist. He was pressured to resign by the "green" majority; now that he's in retirement, he's still studying and commenting on the weather, and undoubtedly having a great time writing his newspaper column because NOW he can speak his mind without fear of being censored---and censured---by the powers that be.
| | 362 members
2,921 guests 3,283 |
World News & Politics