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
If there truly is science backing up the idea that global warming isn't happening from man-made causes, I'd love to read about it. But let's not forget the overwhelming majority of studies that say man-made global warming IS a reality.
Hmmm... okay, let's debate the science... the author, and several respondents, have argued we are in a "cooling" trend... yet 2008 was tied for the eight hottest average year on record.. that doesn't mesh well with a cooling trend (unless the previous 7 years were #1-#7, of course). Here is a link if you'd actually care to research yourself...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090116163206.htm
Then it has been argued that it's due to solar activity... well, about 3/4 of the way through this article on 10/6/08, that the sun is at it's dimmest (lowest output) in all of recorded history (albeit that isn't long, it's still many decades)... and it's been dimming for awhile.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/spotless_sun.html
So, now we have one of the hottest years on record, combined with reduced solar output... that's science, and it directly refutes the troublemaker on the hill, and many ridiculous postings here. It's only one example, there are many, if you throw out only about 2% of "scientific reporting" that denies global warming effects, the other 98% fully substantiate and confirm that something solid is going on, and it's only happened with the coincident dramatic increase in carbon levels not seen in millions of years in nature. And increasing solar activity doesn't explain it, because the opposite is happening.
So the EPA issues a report supported by nearly all scientific study on the earth, and it doesn't decide to throw it out based on the other 2%, that doesn't exactly sound like "wrong-doing" to me, sounds like solid science.
Here are a few more links for the uninformed who might like to learn more (as opposed to the troublemakers who don't care).
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/solar-link-global-warming-ruled-out-13708.html
One conservative nutcase posted this in his blog as "proof from NASA that the earth is cooling as a result of solar activity" or some such nonsense...
"Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth's atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract."
That is of course completely true, and blatantly obvious, but has NOTHING to do with the global warming issue (refuting or supporting). If the earth's temperature at average "solar only" affects is 100%, and solar+man's influences total 105%, and the sun's effect drops 2% for awhile, then we are at 103%, which IS cooler, but not cooler than "solar-only" which would be 98% of the average. So it cools and contracts... to the 103% of the "natural" average, better than nothing, but not in any way contrary to man's effects on global warming.
Also, from that same article (I followed his links backwards to the source, below)...
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Solar_Cycle_Predictions_999.html
"Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance."
So we have some of the lowest solar activity in a century, and yet still have some of the warmest conditions on record... do the math.
Also, those saying the EPA didn't handle this well... the EPA says they considered all sources... I have no idea if they did or not, I have no idea if it's all a big agenda item or not... but the fact that they published a report even though *1* person in the organization said "no, you are wrong", doesn't make them biased, doesn't mean they did anything wrong, if they have 100 scientists (on staff or not) saying "XYZ is correct" and one guy saying "XYZ is wrong", it doesn't matter how loud-mouthed or accusatory the one guy is, they do the scientifically correct thing and publish the report based on the 99, not the 1. He doesn't have to like it, but it doesn't mean they did anything wrong.
If the warming trend is real and is indeed anthropogenic, the proposed legislation, if enacted, will still have only a minor impact. If the trend is not due to human activity, the proposed measures will be completely wasted. In either case they will entail a very great expense, in the latter case for nothing. The problem is that the real motivation behind this bill is not global warming. It is unfortunate that only history will show us that.
CNET, please redeem yourself by running a correction.
He is the one who falsely reported that Al Gore invented the Internet and he's a crank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_McCullagh
The *real* story is how CEI paid the author for his report. Why don't you look into that? That is what CEI has done, time after time, for the past 20 years. Sigh.
- Economics is a science
- The IPCC and other 'climate impact study' groups all have economists on staff. Economists deal with statistical modeling and the collation of data, which are critical parts of any impact study.
- The author of the report has other scientific degrees as well
As for Waxman-Markey:
- Even Greenpeace is against it.
- Even many Democrats are against it.
- It's a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money, and an unnecessary burden, particularly in financially-tough times
And as for Obama
- He's a joke
- He has done nothing to help the US or the world. He has only hurt us by burdening us with huge debt that only exacerbated an ongoing recession. Waxman-Markey will fall in the Senate, his idiotic health care boondoggle will fail, and Sotomayor will be rejected as a racist. He will then become a lame-duck President ... in his first year.
Economics might be a science, and physics certainly is. Both have their place in looking at the impact of global warming and what might be done about it. However, neither is an appropriate background for deciding if global warming is real or caused by man. Scientists with a proper background (and the IPCC) have unmistakably made the case that human-caused warming is real, and projected dire consequences.
Greenpeace is against Waxman-Markey ... because it is not strong enough.
And don't get me started on health care. You just wait until you lose your job in your late 50s and can't get coverage at any price, or have a bad medical problem while covered and have private insurance companies find a loophole to prevent paying. It happens every day to those who thought the current system would support them. But that's a drift from the current topic.
The unbelievable aspect of this story, as others mentioned, is the timing. The Cap-and-Trade (aka Tax-and-Kill) bill was voted upon, sight unseen, complete with 300-page amendment slipped in at the last moment.
It is the most intrusive piece of legislation I have ever read.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/06/steve-driehaus-voted-to-steal-4000-from.html
And supposed 'fiscal conservatives' actually voted for it.
Throw anyone who voted for this piece of crap bill out of office.
- by twll July 23, 2009 7:37 PM PDT
- I'm not sure what that last comment means. Of course the sun is the source of warming for the earth, but the increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are clearly key to explaining increased termperatures -- the radiative forcing gases do not let the heat energy escape into space. And for all who claim the earth is cooling .. The National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just released data that indicates the following: (Lifted from NOAA's web site
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 3 of 3 pages (124 Comments)http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090717_juneglobalstats.html
NOAA: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest on Record for June
July 17, 2009
The world?s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA?s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.
Global Climate Statistics
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the second warmest on record, behind 2005, 1.12 degrees F (0.62 degree C) above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees F (15.5 degrees C).
Separately, the global ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 1.06 degrees F (0.59 degree C) above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F (16.4 degrees C).
Each hemisphere broke its June record for warmest ocean surface temperature. In the Northern Hemisphere, the warm anomaly of 1.17 degrees F (0.65 degree C) surpassed the previous record of 1.12 degrees F (0.62 degree C), set in 2005. The Southern Hemisphere?s increase of 0.99 degree F (0.55 degree C) exceeded the old record of 0.92 degree F (0.51 degree C), set in 1998.
The global land surface temperature for June 2009 was 1.26 degrees F (0.70 degree C) above the 20th century average of 55.9 degrees F (13.3 degrees C), and ranked as the sixth-warmest June on record.
Notable Developments and Events
El Niņo is back after six straight months of increased sea-surface temperature anomalies. June sea surface temperatures in the region were more than 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) above average.
Terrestrial warmth was most notable in Africa. Considerable warmth also occurred in Siberia and in the lands around the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Cooler-than-average land locations included the U.S. Northern Plains, the Canadian Prairie Provinces, and central Asia.
Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.4 million square miles (11.5 million square kilometers) during June, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This is 5.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent. By contrast, the 2007 record for the least Arctic sea ice extent was 5.5 percent below average. Antarctic sea ice extent in June was 3.9 percent above the 1979-2000 average.