EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Apeman81 Of course. Make a decision now, on a bill you have not read, and use data no newer than 3 years old.

Who hasn't read it?
If I pay someone to research kitten claws for me, should I read the entire research or just the synopsis/conclusions? Me doth think ye protests too much. Only some of the data was 3 years old and again, this coming from someone with an agenda.

And the Senate? Why should they bother to review any new data? Do they think themselves better than the House?

Who didn't review the data in the Senate?

And yes, I noticed you have not addressed the findings of the report. Just more of the "kill the messenger" drivel.

Maybe you didn't notice the other 2 posts I made to you. I'm not "killing the messenger" I'm merely grilling the messengers conclusions. I can understand why you would like to make it seem otherwise.

[Apeman81]

[QUOTE=NoJingoLingo;633666]Who hasn't read it?
If I pay someone to research kitten claws for me, should I read the entire research or just the synopsis/conclusions? Me doth think ye protests too much. Only some of the data was 3 years old and again, this coming from someone with an agenda."

Naturally, only one side of the Global Climate Change debate has an agenda

That's the one hell bent on passing laws no one reads based upon selective data, I believe.

"Who didn't review the data in the Senate?"

Hard for them to review a report from the EPA that the EPA has hidden, is it not?

"Maybe you didn't notice the other 2 posts I made to you. I'm not "killing the messenger" I'm merely grilling the messengers conclusions. I can understand why you would like to make it seem otherwise."

I draw no conclusions from this or any other report other than the sure and certain knowledge that it is illogical indeed for anyone to declare that a consensus has been reached and that further data need not be examined.

I also conclude that there exist a large number of people for whom Global Warming is a foregone conclusion of faith, antithetical evidence thereof to be not only ignored, but attacked as heretical.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 I also conclude that there exist a large number of people for whom Global Warming is a foregone conclusion of faith, antithetical evidence thereof to be not only ignored, but attacked as heretical.

Yah right. It is all a big conspiracy.

LOL. Why not add in that those who those who accept the global consensus of scientists are really all Nazis as your leader like your leader Jimmy Inhofe claims.

[lsbskins1]

Lets play my favorite game...the analogy game!

You have, in your bed room, an electric heater and an air conditioner. You turn the heater on and the temperature goes up in your room. Then you turn the air conditioner on, but leave the heater on as well. The temperature falls in your room...but remains higher than it would be if the heater was not on. The falling temperature does not mean that the heater is not working, nor does it mean that the heater does not exist, nor does it mean that the heater is a figment of your imagination. It means that you have two separate "systems" at work, both effecting the temperature "outcome". Global warming is the heater, changes in solar activity the air conditioner. If the heater were not running, we might be heading towards the ice age that the "deniers" are so happy to point out was predicted by science in the 70's. But the heater is running and the air conditioner is only managing to slow down the damage, it is not ending it, much less correcting it. And just as soon as the natural changes in solar activity occur again, and the "air conditioner" is turned off, and we still have the heater running, what then?

Yes, there are natural fluxuations in the earth's temperature. Yes, solar activity effects the earth's temperature. No one denies this. In reading the damn report that was "suppressed", I am struck by the seeming assertion that the existence of one mechanism disproves the existence of the other mechanism.

There is also the fact that the report implies that because the Greenland ice sheet is not melting at as high a rate as was feared was possible, we need not worry about the fact that it is still freakin melting. There is so much, just in the first 20 or so pages, that defies logic that I believe that Apeman could not have read it himself.

How's that for addressing the weakness of the report itself and not addressing it's source or the messenger? I could go on if it is necessary...

[gela]

Isb, why is it that when the earth is warming it is because of CO2, and when the earth is cooling it is because of the sun?
Before the cooling trend, no Global Warming activist or scientist would admit that the sun has a significant influence. Suddenly, now that it is convenient, the sun is to blame.
Data aside, it looks like they are making it up as they go along to me.

[NoJingoLingo]

[QUOTE=Apeman81;633697]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Naturally, only one side of the Global Climate Change debate has an agenda

Yeah, both sides have an agenda. I see them this way:
Liberals want to lower carbon emissions and pollutants because we are at the very least harming our environment which harms us.
Conservatives don't want to do anything if it will cost corporations money.

There is your agenda, as I see it. There is no question that we are in a period of climate change which could have dramatic effects on the human population of the world. Whether or not this problem is caused or exacerbated by humans is the issue. So why are so many cons trying to stop anything from being done? As I understand it, it's because doing something, i.e. reducing pollutants, will cost corporations money. Is this wrong?

That's the one hell bent on passing laws no one reads based upon selective data, I believe.

Again I ask, since you failed to answer the first time, who hasn't read it?

Hard for them to review a report from the EPA that the EPA has hidden, is it not?

Ahh... you want the Senate to read this guys report, I see. But that's not how the system works is it? Congress asks the EPA for a report; the EPA does various studies and reports it's conclusions to Congress. You seem to think (I'm sure it's not what you REALLY think, but you're trying to pretend so in order to...win an argument?) that Congress reads every page or memo of research from every agency they request a report from.

I draw no conclusions from this or any other report other than the sure and certain knowledge that it is illogical indeed for anyone to declare that a consensus has been reached and that further data need not be examined.

Again you're being disingenuous. At some point the EPA has to stop researching and give Congress a report. According to the article, the EPA read this guys report and concluded that it didn't jive with the rest of the research and since they needed to get a report to Congress, they had to have a cut off. No one said that no more research on GHG or CO2 emmissions or anything else under EPA purview is finished, for good. I'm quite sure research will continue and some of it may end up in the next report Congress asks for.

I also conclude that there exist a large number of people for whom Global Warming is a foregone conclusion of faith, antithetical evidence thereof to be not only ignored, but attacked as heretical.

That would be the majority of the intelligent people in the world. The faith comes in only in regards to our faith in the scientific community at large. Since the majority of us are not scientists engaged in these fields of study, we must rely (have faith) in the concensus of the people with the expertise.

If your car is acting funny and you take it to a mechanic, you have faith that when he tells you it's X problem, it actually is. You may even want a second or third opinion... what do you do if 2 out of 3 agree? Do you ignore them in favor of the one guy tells you?

[Apeman81]

CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA | CEI

Find the link to the report here.

You'll note that this is not just "some Guy's" report. It is the draft of an Official report that is prepared by the same official entity (Climate Change Division of the Office of Atmospheric Programs) within the EPA.

So let’s drop the “who is this guy” pretense, shall we?

[Apeman81]

[QUOTE=lsbskins1;633754]Lets play my favorite game...the analogy game!"


The sun is the air conditioner? The sun is responsible for cooling the earth?

I await that explanation.

CO2 is the heater? Then why the drop in temperature as the CO2 levels rise?

Ah! I see. The cooling affects of the sun.

The sun generates heat. It does not generate cold. Cold is the absence of heat. Your analogy is seriously flawed.

A correct version, using your science is that your room has two heaters, internal (the globe) and external (the sun). Each heater can generate more or less heat. One heater (the sun) is currently producing less heat than the other. Consequently, the room temperature is dropping as the total heat output cannot overcome the third, undefined temperature affecting entity that is responsible for the loss of heat in the room.

Now, what is the missing factor that accounts for the dissipation of the total amount of heat generated by the sun, as supposedly retained by the CO2 level?

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Apeman81 CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA | CEI Find the link to the report here. You'll note that this is not just "some Guy's" report. It is the draft of an Official report that is prepared by the same official entity (Climate Change Division of the Office of Atmospheric Programs) within the EPA. So let’s drop the “who is this guy” pretense, shall we?

It just so happens that I was listening to Thom Hartmann today and he had on someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This 5 person rightwing think tank (that gets it's 5+million operating budget from corporations like Texaco, Amaco, Pfizer, Philip Morris.. you get the idea) is the one who pushed this story to CBS news in the first place. The guy from the CEI chuckled and said that is because one of their 5 members, who is also their legal counsel, is very eloquent in his press releases.

So here's what we find out, Alan Carlin, is not in any way involved in research on climate change for the EPA, he is an economist (with a bachelors in Physics but has not ever worked in the field of Physics) with the EPA. He was not asked to research or write a report and he used sources which have been described as "global warming deniers" and various other derogatory epithets. Basically they are wing nuts.

So if I decide to write a report that denies the return of the republican party to political power, you think congress should read it?

Let's face it, this is a nonstory being pushed by global warming deniers. Nothin more, nothing less.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Apeman81 CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA | CEI Find the link to the report here. You'll note that this is not just "some Guy's" report. It is the draft of an Official report that is prepared by the same official entity (Climate Change Division of the Office of Atmospheric Programs) within the EPA. So let’s drop the “who is this guy” pretense, shall we?

In my haste to get the last message done I neglected to address the rest of your message.

You are completely wrong. It is "just some guy's report" It is not an official draft nor THE official draft nor any official anything from the EPA. Sorry. He decided to sit down and write a report on his own and submit it under a program that allows the PUBLIC to submit information on various topics.

As far as I'm concerned, this ends the discussion.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo In my haste to get the last message done I neglected to address the rest of your message. You are completely wrong. It is "just some guy's report" It is not an official draft nor THE official draft nor any official anything from the EPA. Sorry. He decided to sit down and write a report on his own and submit it under a program that allows the PUBLIC to submit information on various topics. As far as I'm concerned, this ends the discussion.

And you believe that who "pushed" the story to the press trumps

On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors: “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

An absolutely ridiculous assertion on your part. More “kill the messenger” pabulum.

You declare the story ended, not because of the substance of the story, but because of whom you believe brought the story to light. Illogical.

[lsbskins1]

[QUOTE=Apeman81;633902]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Lets play my favorite game...the analogy game!" The sun is the air conditioner? The sun is responsible for cooling the earth? I await that explanation. CO2 is the heater? Then why the drop in temperature as the CO2 levels rise? Ah! I see. The cooling affects of the sun. The sun generates heat. It does not generate cold. Cold is the absence of heat. Your analogy is seriously flawed. A correct version, using your science is that your room has two heaters, internal (the globe) and external (the sun). Each heater can generate more or less heat. One heater (the sun) is currently producing less heat than the other. Consequently, the room temperature is dropping as the total heat output cannot overcome the third, undefined temperature affecting entity that is responsible for the loss of heat in the room. Now, what is the missing factor that accounts for the dissipation of the total amount of heat generated by the sun, as supposedly retained by the CO2 level?

Let me see if I can't make this a little more simple for you. First, a link: Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Now, I will explain how the sun can act as an air conditioner. The way the sun can cause cooling trends is to evidence LESS sunspot activity. Lets say, just to keep it simple, that the sun has, on average 100 blaring spots on it's surface at any given time. That average establishes a sort of "average earth temperature", which again, for simplicity's sake we will call 85 degrees. Now, since the earth is heated by the sun, and sunspots are areas of intense solar activity, you can see the correlation, I hope. Now, for some reason, in one given year, rather than there being an average of 100 sunspots, there are only 65. This will cause a cooling trend on earth because the sun is not generating as much heat. Thus, the sun "becomes" an air conditioner. If, in a given year, the average number of sunspots goes up to say, 130 instead of 100, the sun then "becomes" a heater. It is really quite simple and if you had your head in the science rather than stuck in the conservative echo chamber, you would have noticed this, and noticed that no scientist ever denied that the sun and solar activity effect the earth's temperatures.

[Apeman81]

lbskin1

In your scenario, the sun is a heater. It produces heat at varying levels, so it affects the earth’s temperature to a greater or lesser degree. Nothing about the sun’s activities causes cooling. It is the dissipative agent that allows the earth to cool that is the “air conditioner”. That is the element of you analogy that you dismiss.

The other “heater” you refer to, CO2, is again, not actually a heater. It does nothing to generate heat. Theoretically, CO2 has been linked to diminishing the earth’s ability to dissipate the heat it receives from the sun, as well as the “heater” you fail to mention, the earth itself and the activities which take place upon that affect the surface and atmospheric temperatures.

The issue at hand is the actual affect of CO2 concentrations on the globe’s ability to dissipate heat. A theory is that there exists a direct correlation between the CO2 concentration and resultant global temperatures. The issue that this report addresses is the fact that while the CO2 concentrations have been is a steady rise since 2002, the global temperatures have been in decline.

What you seem to be trying to say is that you adhere to the CO2/Temperature relationship, and offer as the reason for the lower temps despite the increased CO2 is the results of a decrease in the heat radiated upon the earth by the sun.

In and of itself, that is not an unreasonable belief. However, current proposals before congress are working from a differing set of facts. They are using an older U.N. model that does not note the recent temperature drop despite the CO2 rise. Legislators should have at their disposal the latest data in order to make an informed decision. Additionally, each individual proposed change in human behavior that the government seeks to force upon we the people should be evaluated for its actual effect on our environment. That is not the case in the current political environment of global climate change.

Hence, an administrator at the EPA did this:

On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors: “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

No matter what "side" of a theory you are on, you should never supress evidence, no matter what the source.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 No matter what "side" of a theory you are on, you should never supress evidence, no matter what the source.

That is ridiculous. There was no "suppression" of EPA documents because Carlin was freelancing. And if indeed the report is "a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at," as claimed by a NASA climatologist why should the EPA do anything but ignore the report.

Your science should not be trumped by ideology. The Bush administration, where ideology mattered more than the science, is over.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Apeman81 lbskin1 In your scenario, the sun is a heater. It produces heat at varying levels, so it affects the earth’s temperature to a greater or lesser degree. Nothing about the sun’s activities causes cooling. It is the dissipative agent that allows the earth to cool that is the “air conditioner”. That is the element of you analogy that you dismiss. The other “heater” you refer to, CO2, is again, not actually a heater. It does nothing to generate heat. Theoretically, CO2 has been linked to diminishing the earth’s ability to dissipate the heat it receives from the sun, as well as the “heater” you fail to mention, the earth itself and the activities which take place upon that affect the surface and atmospheric temperatures. The issue at hand is the actual affect of CO2 concentrations on the globe’s ability to dissipate heat. A theory is that there exists a direct correlation between the CO2 concentration and resultant global temperatures. The issue that this report addresses is the fact that while the CO2 concentrations have been is a steady rise since 2002, the global temperatures have been in decline. What you seem to be trying to say is that you adhere to the CO2/Temperature relationship, and offer as the reason for the lower temps despite the increased CO2 is the results of a decrease in the heat radiated upon the earth by the sun. In and of itself, that is not an unreasonable belief. However, current proposals before congress are working from a differing set of facts. They are using an older U.N. model that does not note the recent temperature drop despite the CO2 rise. Legislators should have at their disposal the latest data in order to make an informed decision. Additionally, each individual proposed change in human behavior that the government seeks to force upon we the people should be evaluated for its actual effect on our environment. That is not the case in the current political environment of global climate change. Hence, an administrator at the EPA did this: No matter what "side" of a theory you are on, you should never supress evidence, no matter what the source.

Glad to see that, after a lot of fancy dancing, you note that my point is not unreasonable. The beauty of the analogy is that it can illustrate, by way of a more commonly understandable relationship, a more complex one. I was not seeking to establish a 1:1 correlation between sun/air conditioner and CO2/electric heater. I was seeking to establish the idea that 2 separate "systems" can effect outcomes of the same variables.

If I can figure this out, surely our law makers can. They are just as free as I am to research what they vote on. And they are not bound to consider only the reports submitted. They have staff's that are paid to research legislation and advise them on its merits. That is why individual members rarely read bills in their entirety. Someone on staff has been paid to dig and find relevant information, read the bills, know what the main framework is and let them know about those last minute add-ons and such. The point being, no one in congress is working solely off of 3 year old information. But, please, do not confuse that with any sense of agreement that that information is truly flawed. Passing a law is not like ruling on established law and members of the House and Senate are not bound to consider "only the evidence submitted to the court". The sad truth is that C02 is effecting our climate. It is a greenhouse gas...greenhouse being the analogous term of importance. It traps heat, it does not "create it", but in trapping it (like the greenhouse traps heat) it halts a natural dissipation process and the net effect is that our temperatures become elevated. This too, is a rational point. But, you trivialize the rational point by trying to falsely equate the point of the "net effect" (a rise in temperature) to someone implying that C02 "generates" heat. Those are the methods of false attacks and smoke and mirrors argumentation used by those who would wish to deny that their "money making industry" is very likely capable of killing us all in the long run. Evidence was not surpressed, an unsolicitated rewording of debunked theories was rejected as relevant information for consideration.

[Apeman81]

[QUOTE=lsbskins1;634084]Glad to see that, after a lot of fancy dancing, you note that my point is not unreasonable. “

No dancing involved. What I did was deconstruct your flawed analogy and created a more apt, and correct one. I did not do so to “trivialize the rational point by trying to falsely equate the point of the "net effect" (a rise in temperature) to someone implying that C02 "generates" heat.” I did so because your analogy was simply wrong. Your analogy left the heating and more importantly, the cooling of the planet to only external forces. You completely discounted the earth’s ability to cool itself through the atmospheric dissipation of heat. That was not my error.

The fact that a belief in the heat retentive nature of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere is not unreasonable does not make it true. You claim, as a matter of fact, that it is. I responded for you in that you would assert that the lack of heating in recent years while CO2 concentrations have risen was caused by the diminution of sunspot activity. That does not make it fact, simply your opinion.

I noticed that in your dissertation about the nature of lawmaking, you fail to address that laws under consideration now are 1) being considered because of currently non-existent warming based upon an unproven theory as to its cause, and 2) proposes unproven “corrective actions” based upon the same unproven theory as the cause of the warming that is not currently taking place.

Despite the theatrical warnings of impending doom (“is very likely capable of killing us all in the long run”), and despite the fact that the doom bringing warming is currently not occurring, many lawmakers seem hell bent on rushing forward with so called solutions, the negative effects of which are far more reliably known than any positive climactic effect is.

This is not the time to rush through thousands of pages of unread legislation

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp . The Bush administration, where ideology mattered more than the science, is over.

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Yep! Sure sounds like ideology is dead

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman Yep! Sure sounds like ideology is dead

How about subservient to actual science... for a change. You're simply whining because 8 years (more?) of Republican acquiescence to the free-market, head-in-the-sand agenda has come to an end.

Quote by: Isbskins Now, I will explain how the sun can act as an air conditioner.

Alas, no analogy will ever work on the deniers, skins. If it comes down to concern about the end of life on earth as we know it, or concern about the possibility taxes and government regulation, the deniers will always come down for the latter. And since that would be immoral, and since conservatives view themselves as the arbiters of what is and is not moral, then the threat to the planet simply cannot exist and nothing you or I can say will make any difference whatsoever. It doesn't matter how many scientists declare AGW a fact, they will cling to even the most ridiculous arguments in order to continue maintaining that it's not.

In this case, it's all a liberal conspiracy out to silence the poor, repressed 'tobacco-is-perfectly-safe' scientific reports... oop, sorry, wrong era. The poor, repressed 'there-is-no-global-warming' scientists.... oops, one more time... the poor, repressed, 'ok-there's-global-warming-but-we're-not-causing-it' scientific reports.

Quote by: Isbskins I was not seeking to establish a 1:1 correlation between sun/air conditioner and CO2/electric heater. I was seeking to establish the idea that 2 separate "systems" can effect outcomes of the same variables.

Alas, far too complicated a concept for the average denier.

Quote by: Isbskins If I can figure this out, surely our law makers can. They are just as free as I am to research what they vote on.

And alas again, for the Inhofe crowd, research means finding out what the 'expert' free-market economists at AEI, the CEI, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the API, Exxon, etc. etc. have to say about it.

Quote by: Apeman And you believe that who "pushed" the story to the press trumps... "A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:"

Absolutely!

If someone in the EEOC submitted a 'scientific' report from the KKK that blacks were racially incapable of all but the most menial jobs, would the EEOC be wrong in quashing the report and firing the employee for failing to comprehend the EEOC's mission?

.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Apeman81 And you believe that who "pushed" the story to the press trumps

OK, I'll try to move you along step by step so that you don't continually misunderstand what I'm saying or what my point is.

I never said that "who "pushed" the story to the press trumps" I noted that the NONstory was pushed by a rightwing, industry funded group. It would be analogous to Green Peace pushing a story about the Titmouse dying from chocolate when they are paid to push this idea by Hersey's. It makes you suspicious.

An absolutely ridiculous assertion on your part. More “kill the messenger” pabulum.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here since you didn't quote me and then make the comment, you quoted the article and then called my assertion ridiculous. So let me just ask you straight out:
1) Was Alan Carlin tasked by the EPA to research or write even a single word regarding the topic?
2) Is Alan Carlin a climatologist or a scientist employed by anyone to do climate research?
3) Was Alan Carlin warned by his supervisor NOT to push his "report" around and did Mr. Carlin disobey his employer thereby ensuring his termination?
4) If I write a 90 page report on climate change do you believe that everyone in Congress should read it?
5) If you answer yes to question 4, do you think there should be a cut off time for submissions or a limit on the number of reports Congress should be required to purview?
6) if you work at a tire store selling tires and your boss says "Apeman81, do not attempt to do tire balancing" and then you go balance a few tires, do you think your boss has the right to fire you?

You declare the story ended, not because of the substance of the story, but because of whom you believe brought the story to light. Illogical.

No I declare it ended because there is no story other than the one you are desperately pushing.

Here's another story for you to push... Man gets fired for disobeying his boss. Who cares.

[NoJingoLingo]

Actually, here's a better analogy: If I write a report denying the existence of Al Queda, should Homeland Security pass that along to Congress to read? I'm no authority on the subject and no one asked me to write it and it goes against the majority of evidence to the point of sounding like I'm a nut. So should Congress be required to read my report?