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.
Don't buy these one-trick ponies--unless you like gizmos that gather dust.
The Net giant, ever eager for a faster Internet, debuts its Google Public DNS service. With it, Google could become even more central to the Net.
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
Thank God the EPA is suppressing this guy. Not for his views, but because the rest of the world would be laughing so hard.
No way this guy is credible.
Let's wait until it is too late to fix the problem.
Listen, I am all for making cars more fuel efficient, put out less emissions, etc..... but I am getting REAL FREAKING TIRED (I would use the other F word there!) of being feared into doing those things with misrepresented data and blunt LIES.
Au contraire. Its the best artice CNET have published all year. It proves they at least have some guts, and are not totally 100% in the tank for the Obummer regime.
@ jack5092 :"Lets turn it around a bit so we can judge it more clearly. "An environmentalist has tried to get an article published with the finance department stating that the US economy is the result of central state controlled planning, and not open markets. He's now outraged that his article was rejected and is claiming suppression from authorities who are simply protecting their previously held position." Had this been the story you all would have laughed that someone with no expertise was shocked his article wasn't published "
Hey, we had the mainstream media, CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times etc, reagularly publish wakadoo, crazy theories and invite lunatics from the Bush-hating left wing crazies brigade on to TV, to come spew about how it was the Bush adminstratiion that actually planted bombs in the WTC buildings. This was despite ME personally seeing the second plane drive into the WTC building. I didn't see you demand that those lunatics be shut up did I? You are the same liberals who were cheering these crazies on, then, because your guy was not in the White House.
Are you denying that Dubya was illegitimate and incompetent?
Sure the plane flew into the tower. From what I've heard and read it still looked an awful lot like a controlled demolition [this is from people that blew stuff up as a vocation]. Also, what say you to the purported presence of thermite? Why was the investigation stalled for two years?
If you can take the scientific claims of an economist, them I suppose you ask your cable guy to give you a physical?
Once again " pentest" is proving to be a mnindless Obamamot, terrorist foot soldier, who brooks no dissent in opinion, and moves to terrorise and oppress anyone with any dissenting views. This is not Stalinist Soviet Union..yet
@ pentest."If you can take the scientific claims of an economist"
The guy has a physics degree from CalTech in addition to being a PHD in economics. He is NOT pretending to be a scientist. He IS a scientist. What scientific credentials do YOU have, mate?
There is also this thing about actually working in the field that you study for 45 years, versus working in another field. As I understand it, he doesn't deny that climate change is happening nor what is causing it, but feels there are other routes to address it.
The most recent peer-reviewed findings regarding all of these items indicate that a) sunspot cycles have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; b) cosmic rays have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; c) Greenland's ice sheet continues to melt at a fairly good clip. He even asserts that rising global temps are somehow responsible for the increase in human lifespan we have seen in the last century.
The report is ridiculous. Read it. It's no wonder they ignored this guy. He's an idiot.
The same liberals, who are questioning Dr.Carlin's scientific credentials, despite him having a bachelor's degree in Physics from CalTech, are the very same people, who kept cheering on Algore and all the hundreds of lies he told in his joke of a movie " An Inconvenient Truth"
Folks, let;s consider Algore here for a minute shall we? This is a guy who not only has ZERO scientific credentials, whatsoever, Algore actually FLUNKED even out of Divnity school!
Is this the kind of guy that should be lecturing anyone on "global warming", especially since he was using nearly 200 times as much carbon based electricity as the average American does to power his house? NO!
Yet the liberals cheerfully accepted his lies as gospel. Yet today, the same libearls question a guy with a heck of a lot more scientific credentials than Algore. Go figure!
The right here, such as Mr. Declan, are saying that this guy is a scientist. He is not. He is someone who has worked as an EPA economist for decades. None of his work is peer reviewed.
Again, Al Gore not a scientist. Al Gore does not claim to be a scientist.
You guys all say Carlin is a scientist yet has not worked in that field. Ever. Nor had any peer reviewed work. Ever.
Also, http://sethf.com/gore/
He received his physics under graduate degree from Cal Tech and his Ph.D. from MIT. He is a very smart guy.
You need to drop the economist argument because it doesn't prove anything other than how you appear making such an argument.
No one said he is not smart. But try to imagine this:
You work at your company in the accounting department of a tech company. You also have a CS degree that you got 40 years ago. Suddenly, you demand that the tech company include your report on the new product that is being introduced. The engineers, execs and the like look at your report. They decide, that umm, you work in accounting, but say thanks. Your view is not included.
At some point the methane will start pouring out of the frozen hinterlands of Siberia unabated. Then we're toast, methane is far worse than CO2.
We've known about global warming since the 1950's, it's time to act on it.
It's the sun, not CO2. We as mammals evolved in a garden with orders of magnitude more CO2 than we have now, or could ever put into the atmosphere from fossil fuel use. Since our fossil fuels are arguably the result of the terraforming by visible life consuming CO2 over the past 500 million years, it's probably an impossibility for us ever to extract enough coal and oil to put more than a fraction back into the air, or do it much faster than existing plants can take it back out.
Hang on, so what you're saying is that cycle 23 is going longer than expected? Perhaps I've misread this but it does look like this to me which would suggest that the first part of this quote is incorrect.
Regarding solar forcing, this is what I have found thus far on this notion;
'The most commonly cited study by skeptics -- by Usokin, Schussler, Solanki and Mursula -- also found that the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude that, ?during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.?[7]
According to Skeptical Science[8] -- a website by John Cook which reviews specific arguments used by the sceptics -- this is also confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978[9], sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950[10], the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1960[11], and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.[12]
The GCC's own scientists noted that "Direct measures of the intensity of solar radiation over the past 15 years indicate a maximum variability of less than 0.1%, sufficient to account for no more than 0.1°C temperature change. This period of direct measurement included one complete 11 year sun spot cycle, which allowed the development of a correlation between solar intensity and the fraction of the Sun's surface covered by sun spots. Applying this correlation to sun spot data for the past 120 years indicates a maximum variability on solar intensity of 0.1%, corresponding to a maximum temperature change of 0.1°C, one-fifth of the temperature change observed during that period. If solar variability has accounted for 0.1°C temperature increase in the last 120 years, it is an interesting finding, but it does not allay concerns about future warming which could result from greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever contribution solar variability makes to climate change should be additive to the effect of greenhouse gas emissions. The Tinsley and Heelis proposed mechanism may revive the debate about the role of solar variability. To date is has not entered the climate change debate."'
Industry in America, is a heck of a lot more PRO science than the scientifically illiterate Algore and his narcissistic Hollywood pals, who use more carbon based electricity to power their luxurious homes, and pilot theirp rivate jets around by far than most Americans do.
While Alan Carlin may not have the background to perform original climate research, he's well qualified by education and by his nearly four decades as an EPA staffer to read published research and understand the implications of that research.
Also with a BS in Physics (and an MS in Electrical Engineering), when I finally saw a bit of anti-AGW propaganda laying out some of the same arguments, I went searching for the peer reviewed papers by the likes of physicists Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, Shaviv and geochemist Jan Veizer, and found ample evidence that called into doubt the AGW bandwagon. My own epiphany was reading the paper "Celestial driver of the Phanerozoic climate?" by Shaviv and Veizer (cited by the Svensmark Cosmoclimatology paper in Astronomy & Geophysics): whenever you have two completely separate scientific disciplines independently arriving at the same result, one must sit up and take notice.
The only reason the debate on CO2's role in climate change could be declared to be over is that folks such as those in control at the EPA have managed to insure it could never start. Thanks to CBS News and CNET for running with this story by Declan McCullagh.
CEI pushing the debate on this totally undermines its credibility. A few people with degrees can always be bought, or threatened or influenced in some way to promote a given agenda. That's a major reason why peer review analysis on an individuals conclusions is so important. The time for his conclusions to be reviewed by climate specialists in advance of a policy decision had come and gone. If you don't have some sort of cut off date for these things, then those who don't like what you are about to do can just keep bringing something else, and something else, and something else forward, to bog down any actions in never ending delays.
It brings to mind a view of a college student that hands in his term paper after the due date, and cries when the professor rejects it outright because its late. Wasn't there a Bush flunky who took it upon himself to edit a scientific paper of some kind about global warming, got busted, and then went to work for Exxon/Mobile.?
What's to say it wasn't a strategic move by CEI to have him present that report at that time, knowing full well it would be brushed aside, so that then they could scream bloody murder and play the suppression card.
It's a well known tactic, to inhibit any meaningful action from happening in a direction you don't like, you promote a debate on it by ANY means necessary. While people debate and debate and debate, nothing much changes ,and power or profit or whatever you're getting just keeps rolling in. Hey, it worked great for the cigarette companies for decades. Only this time, if the majority view of scientists is true, then we don't have that long to debate and do nothing.
Way to try and turn it the other way round.
Hey it's the enviro-wacko crazies on this thread who have been calling Alan Carlin's scientific credentials into question in post after post here, despite Alan Carlin having a phyisics degree from one of our best universitites, and having a PHD from MIT to boot.
Not to mention, his physics degree from CalTech alone gives him a heck of a lot more clout scientifically, than the stupid talking heads in the liberal media and the empty heads from Hollywood who have ben shoving this "global warming" nonsense down our throats. Similar viws to his, have been expressed by thousands of the best scientific minds on the planet, despite supression of their views, and outright hostility from the liberal media.
So much for Obummer's loud, oft repeated campaign boasts of running "the most transparent administration ever". Instead, this is the most opaque adminstration ever. Yet another of Obummer's empty campaign promises goes down the drain. This has got to be the most corrupt, sleazy, unprincipled, adminstration this country has ever seen..by far.
'CEI pushing the debate on this totally undermines its credibility.'
EPA's only "problem" is that Carlin wasn't smoked out and headed off at the pass six months ago.
And that is wrong how?
How would you like millions of jobs to be lost in this country because of some unproven nonsense from enviro-wacko tree huger fanatics, who have made huge contributions to Obummer's presidentail campaign?
Then again, that says nothing about the (presumably) hundreds of other EPA scientists whose positions never reached the scandal-page, and whose work apparently did not suffer the same fate. Let's get some perspective here.
It's also more than a bit ironic that the global-warming naysayers here are so quick to jump on this, when the previous US administration was probably one of, if not the worst in US history when it came to political meddling in governmental agency affairs, especially when that pertains to suppressing scientific views supported by broad consensus, or appointing highly politicized flacks in high positions who consistently pushed politically-expedient, blatant junk-science. That occurred with many federal agencies under Bush, including the EPA, FDA, Energy Dept, NASA, etc. etc.
Where I come from, that's called situational ethics.
Every scientist who has seriously studied the subject knows that global warming is real, and that CO2 contributes to that process.
Also if everyone who is concerned that Carlin is not a scientist (and a degree in Physics does make him one), then they should be highly concerned that the EPA directed him to write this report. Because if the EPA is asking the wrong people to create reports for it's decisions, then all of their reports are suspect.
Just throwing that out there.
- by txsoldier41 June 29, 2009 7:11 AM PDT
- What appears to be missing in the comments, in my opinion, are that the EPA directed that this report created and then didn't like what it found. However, if the conclusions of the writer of this report did further the global warming or climate change agenda the it would be placed in a prominent position in the EPA's decision.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (124 Comments)Also if everyone who is concerned that Carlin is not a scientist (and a degree in Physics does make him one), then they should be highly concerned that the EPA directed him to write this report. Because if the EPA is asking the wrong people to create reports for it's decisions, then all of their reports are suspect.
Just throwing that out there.