A series of e-mail messages from the Environmental Protection Agency shows manager told a researcher his 98-page report on climate change would not be disseminated. The EPA says it acted properly.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Things like this are going to become more and more common as the global warming 'true believers' (I would liken them to Christians in the Crusades) keep on trying to stomp down on anyone who DARES to buck their belief in global warming, even if they are doing it with facts.
Yes, the world IS heating up (A very little) but that has only one true source: the Sun, and there isn't ANYTHING we can do about that but get used to it and compensate for it.
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
They tend to be better judges than Fox news anchors or even the occasional dissonant scientific opinion (we put aside virtually every scientific opinion for the last 8 years).
Why is it everyone who is pro-fact, anti-myth when it comes to climate labeled as a Fox news watcher? Oh that is right, because they have no other recourse. Can't debate with truth, so try to make the messenger evil. Why won't Al Gore debate with a skeptic? Because he knows the skeptic is informed, the worst thing for the climate change crowd.
Get informed. If you have an open mind and time, climate change is easily disproven. Start with someone who crunches the raw numbers: www.climateaudit.org. Next weed out everyone with an agenda, such as the Heartland Institute, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Michael Mann, CNN, Fox News, the UN IPCC, and so forth. Once you take those steps, the truth will be obvious. Global warming is a myth, human caused climate change is a myth. Natural climate change is a fact of life.
Funny how that wasn't mentioned.
You mean the status quo of the loony left crazies who dominate the corrupt Chicago political machine that dominate the Obummer regime?
Protip - the earth's climate is cyclical, and our axis, like every other planet, isn't perfect - it tilts and wobbles as time goes on. This wobble currently making the northern hemisphere get a larger amount of sunlight than the southern. Oh noes! Global warming!
Fun Trivia: What causes over 96% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: Nature or man? (Hint, over 70% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from volcanic activity)
Then the economist makes embarrassingly wrong statements about global warming, showing he's completely clueless and out to lunch. Why the heck did CNET uncritically report his lunatic claims?
Mr. McCullagh should be fired immediately for publishing such garbage.
Mean global temperatures did peak in 1998, I've seen it on several government websites (NOAA and such) that track it.
I never believed in the global warming theory. Heck, if the output from the sun remains constant, earth's temperature would remain constant. If the greenhouse gases trap heat and prevent surface radiation, they would do the same to the incoming heat. Net result - zero.
There is something very fishy going on here at the EPA - this report was conveniently discarded, official statements to the contrary and the regulation (which normally takes years) passed in a matter of weeks. If that's not enough, the house bill passed so quickly. Definitely a case of BIG "special interests"!
Kudos to McGullagh and CNET for this article and for bringing this to the attention of many (including myself) that could have otherwise not known about this. This has also re-affirmed my recently flagging confidence in CNET.
If anyone should be fired, it should be you.
This guy is a clown with an agenda, or a money stream from someone who benefits from maintaining the status quo.
Are we going to allow a biologist to have any credibility in economic decisions?
Well, only if you shortsighted neo-con nut bags agree with the position apparently.
This guy is not qualified! End of story.
It's time to realize that just because someone has 'no formal training' does NOT mean that we should automatically discount what they are saying. We've done that with many people over the years, only for them to be proven RIGHT when the cards were all laid face up.
lightningrob gets it right: the eco-fascists want to silence ANY dissent on global warming (at least MAN-MADE global warming) because they wish to fear and guilt people into thinking that "We are destroying the planet!" without any real evidence of that.
Huh?
Is this Comrade Obummer's first amendendment, truth suppresing, terrorist KGB agents at work here with their intimidatory tactics?
Hey, Obummebr, this is not Zimbabwe ..yet. You can't jail, torture and imprison, and fire journalists just because they won't tow your anti-American, economy ruining, super corrupt, sleazy regime.
Heck YES he does and he can.
99% of the moronic, liberal idiots in Hollywood and the Mainstream Media, who continue to peddle this so-called "global warming" nonsense, wouldn't even tell you what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is, let alone come even close to having a PHD in science. yet the air-heads in Hollywood/media continue to pass themselves off as authorities in this mythical "global warming" and push that brain dead agenda with all their might. Why the heck can't an economics PHD write a report that rightfully expresses great scepticism of "global warming"?
That economist just happpens to have a physics degree from CalTech. That makes him a scientist anyway you want to twist it. How many science degrees do YOU have?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/</a>
Of course, anyone with a brain can copy and paste them into their browser.
And, again of course, anyone with a brain would leave out the text in front of the http:// because that text is what prevented the first link from working properly (using copy and paste).
[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/[/url]
If not, here's the URL all by itself:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
OK. So, satellite imagery and deep drilling studies conducted by NASA and other scientists is wrong about greenlands' ice.
the report author was an economist not a scientist, the EPA uses science,
would you write a headline about SUPPRESSION if they didn't listen to a toy maker's report too!
This guy has a BS in Physics, which would make him a scientist. He has been working with the EPA for 38 years. How long did Al gore work for the EPA? How long have YOU worked for the EPA?
I believe this guys opinion is more legitimate than yours is. Personally, I don't think any decision can be made on Global warming without looking at the trends for at least another century. With any less data, you really cannot say with authority what the temperature trend is on this planet. Frankly, since there have been thousands of centuries, it's pretty odd that any scientist should state he knows that the temperature trend should be right now.
I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand: There is little dispute that the earth has been warmer - and colder for that mater. The fact that it was warmer *100,000* years ago is irrelevant.
The issue that is causing so much concern is the RATE at which the temperature is changing. At no time in history has the earth warmed as quickly as it is now.
Regarding the report, I agree that there is bad science and psudo-science on both sides of this issue. However, there is a lot more money attached to the anti-warming agenda that the pro. Additionally, the scientific community has been looking at the science on both sides of the issue for the past decade, and the consensus seems sufficient for the policy discussions and decissions that are required right now.
I am really disappointed that the EPA chose such a myopic approach to this report. Regardless of the validity of the data and conclusions, by suppressing the report, as they did, they have created an aura of conspiracy that will dog the policy forever.
How could they not see that coming. The EPA management should be called on the carpet for their political tone deafness.
It explains why he is right, and you(with no proven credentials), are wrong.
We have had thousands of science PHD's expressing, exactly the same scepticism he's expressing about "global warming"
You do not need to be a scientist to feel the big anomalies compared to 20 years ago (like seasons going out of sync, summers getting hotter, glaciers melting around the world - i have seen that myself, etc).
Seems like there are so many ignorant people that would still want to continue those destructive actions of humanity...
This, like so many other main-stream comments, shows a lack of current data events. I live near Chicago ... experiencing the coolest June on record! That means back into the 1800s. So what would a scientist say to that data? If summers are truly getting hotter, the outliers of data would not be that extreme - most would be near norm with a statistically significant number greater than norm. Show me that data.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the world is heating up, and the fact is that the ONLY thing that can heat the world up is..... THE SUN!
Also, you do realize that glaciers used to cover parts of the United States -- that's how the Great Lakes were formed, for example -- and melted away long before we were emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling and always has.
I guess the Democrats like fiction(read Al Gore) rather than facts, good work Cnet for reporting this.
The main question I have for the folks discrediting Carlin's report, is this: why would you turn your back and put your hands over your ears if more facts keep rolling in? Why make up your mind so soon? The truth is, a true scientist is less satisfied with conclusions and more interested in new data all the time. It's about a continuous quest for knowledge, and new data and peer review are basics tenet of this. Not shutting off your mind and saying "nope, don't believe it....I've already made my decision".
It sounds to me like this Carlin guy was reminding the EPA (which months ago was telling everyone that science was #1, and not ideology) of its core mission....seems like the new EPA is already politically charged and has forgotten what it said in January. Carlin may not have been an official "scientist" charged with accumulating data for the EPA, but perhaps his report was simply reminding them that there hasn't been enough science on this, and too much effort has gone into shoehorning a pre-judged ideology into public policy on a ridiculously timed fast-track with nowhere near the time for public commentary usually reserved for these endeavors.
Thanks Declan for posting this.
1. An individual (Al McGartland) submitted his own report, LATE in the process.
2. He expected the process to STOP for HIM, suggesting that without inclusion of HIS paper, the EPA would not be pursuing good science.
3. He admitted that his paper had NOT BEEN PEER REVIEWED; as consolation, he notes that two-thirds of his references were to peer-reviewed papers.
4. If his own paper was not peer reviewed but was using peer-reviewed papers, he is suggesting that his insight is stronger than that of those separate papers he cited in his own.
Ah, the ego knows no bounds.
Yeah, obviously moron... Maybe instead of going off half-cocked, you should pay attention to the facts... Like the person who wrote the report is named: ALAN CARLIN! How much Kool-Aid have you consumed today? People like you make people like you look bad...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
Calling someone out on getting the guy's name wrong is somewhat pedantic.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
Nuff said.
scientific study got caught lying about having a PhD. When things
got hot, he purchased a fake PhD diploma off a cheesy Internet website,
a Thornhill University in Israel.
This report was used to justify sweeping, costly new diesel emission
rules proposed by the CARB staff.
It cannot be underestimated how powerful the ARB is. These reports justify
California's air laws. AB 32 is our own very expensive law. Though it
will have nearly no effect on global C02 itself, we are told how it
will because the USA and the world will follow our lead. The new USA air
laws are based on CA's laws.
Look, I'm no global warming denier. I don't even doubt the accuracy of
Hien's report. But this is ridiculous. They fired (moved?) him and kept
his report!
Chris Reed at SDUT has been tracking this. He has follow-ups too.
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/033291.html#more
Personally, even though I am an EXTREME liberal (almost an anarchist if I was honest about it), I don't think that global warming is real. I've read too many studies and seen the data in my local area and state where it shows that global warming is the biggest load of bunk in history.
'I've read too many studies and seen the data in my local area and state where it shows that global warming is the biggest load of bunk in history.'
Funny, most of the authors of reports denying this that I've looked into have questionable ties. I also consider it a tad ludicrous that you would base your idea solely on data from your particular locality.
- by mbenedict June 27, 2009 9:26 PM PDT
- Good article Declan.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (124 Comments)