The report seems to say the same things we anti-man-made-global-warming folks have already called bullshit on. The are suppressing it because it does not line up with their agenda and this Sen. Inhofe is trying to make it public as possible. Good for him.
Dude, it's fox news... Cmon.
This article covers a SINGLE finding of a POTENTIAL incident, thats fairly weak even for FOX.
Anyone with knowledge on this subject knows that almost 100% of the comprehensive reviewed studies confirm the trend of Global Warming. Even my crazy republican english teacher knew that the earth is warming, he just disagreed on WHY its warming.
I have done much work in dealing with the NJ Department of Environmental Protection, which Lisa Jackson used to head until this year. I know the agency has gone in the past few years.
I'm not impressed by ANYTHING the DEP has done. I expect that the EPA will consequentially be as fucked up, if not worse, than the DEP.
This sounds like the same sort of conspiracy theory crap that creationists claim goes on in Biology. From reading Fox's seemingly fair and balanced report (and yes, I say that seriously) what seems to be really going on here is that someone with an agenda to push in the EPA overstepped their bounds and area of expertise and where according shot down after review.
Now other people with agendas to push will latch onto this story as evidence of cover up and conspiracy while further trusting the unoriginal research of an unqualified man over more qualified experts.
Now, I'm not fan of the "OMG, the sky-is-falling, man-made global climate change" crowd, but this whole thing smells of evidence grabbing from the "OMG, there is absolutely no evidence for man-made climate change, climatologists are all liberal wackos" crowd.
EDIT: By my remark about Fox, I merely meant that HOW they are covering this seems fair and balanced--giving both sides, etc. Whether this is news worthy at all is another question...
I'm as liberal as they come, but I don't really believe in man made climate change.
I will be truly surprised if, in 2,000 years, we aren't in another ice age. This planet is far more powerful then we think.
I heard about this Pat...sad that people would dismiss any report because it came 'from Fox'...
Well. They don't exactly have the best track record.
Fox is running with it because the rest of the media doesn't seem to have an interest in it. If Bush was still president I'm sure it would be the lead story on all the major networks.
Here's the entire report. Read the executive summary it's pretty damaging.
Pretty damaging? I don't have the time nor the expertise to really go through this in detail, but just from looking at the executive summary, table of contents, and references, I'll say this. First, what the executive summary calls "inconsistencies" are not inconsistencies, they are gaps in the data. Second, any report that feels the need to have a section called "what is science" smells of propaganda. When I actually read this cute little section I found it was basically that--confused justification for why the lack of definitive theory means we should do nothing. Third, the sparse reference section seems dubious at best. While there are some references from what look like peer reviewed journals, many of the references come from non-peer reviewed sources.
My impression of the report from the little I read is that the report is a bunch of fallacious reasoning mixed in with some good science. The argument seems to be something like "we have evidence that things like solar activity have a large impact on the climate, therefore we can't tell what sort of effect man-made emission of GHG have, therefore we shouldn't do anything to limit our emission of GHG". This is a stupid argument. No scientist would deny that natural processes like solar activity, vulcanism, etc. can have a far bigger impact on the climate then man-made GHG emissions. This though does not mean that man-made GHG gas emissions do not have an effect on the climate, nor does the fact that it is very hard to gauge their effect relative to our natural processes mean that either.
I do not know whether human emission of GHG has any real effect on the climate. I certainly wouldn't buy this sort of fallacious reasoning though. It seems clear that human emission of GHG could have a major impact on the climate, while other things like solar activity have a greater impact. Hence seeing a decrease in global temperatures doesn't mean that human activity doesn't have an impact on the climate.
In any case, there is enough bullshit argument grabbing and agenda pushing in this thing that I'm glad no one besides the conspiracy theory nuts have taken it seriously.
Who here is dismissing it because it came from Fox? I even praised Fox for providing what seemed like fair coverage of the issue.
Pretty damaging if you read the parts that are the focus of the executive summary:
Global temeratures have been declining for 11 years while CO2 has increased.
The sun is the most important determinant of temperature and the sun goes in cycles
which we can't control, even Obama.
- The changes in temperature are not significant enough to matter.
- The model ignores water vapor (clouds) which greatly influence temperature.
Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it's pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can't be changed and the data simply doesn't back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.
It's a perfect issue for the Republicans to hammer the Democrats with in 2010 and beyond.
Bottom line why suppress it if it isn't true? If the "believers" were confident in their argument why not debate it in the open and actually back up the belief with facts. The EPA scientists who wrote it aren't naive fools, they have looked at the data and come to a different conclusion. Would you want your doctor making a diagnosis on you with test results that are three plus years old and based on a flawed process?
Not true. Global warming is, at this moment, a fact. The only question is whether humans affect it and how long it will last.
At the time of the dinosaurs, the Earth was much, much warmer than it was now.
I didnâ??t think the issue was really about the report at all. There were internal emails made public, that showed political pressure not to use the report. Politics dictating the science, thatâ??s where the problem is. Not about whoâ??s right or wrong.
â??"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate," McGartland wrote. â??
In other words, no science while we wait on the politics.
There is also a contradiction from the EPA as to whether they included the report in their findings. The email the sent Carlin said they wouldnâ??t, their official statement said they did.
There is nothing new in the report itâ??s rehashed information that has been available.
Umm... Did you ever read what I wrote? I addressed exactly these issues, and how they aren't damaging. All of these things could be true, and yet it could still be true--and does seem to be true--that human emission of GHG has a significant effect on the environment, and hence that we should be more responsible in controlling GHG emissions.
Of course there are "moonbats" who will believe in global warming no matter what, just like there are moonbats who will believe in a Judeo-Christian god no matter no. Nevertheless, just because there are some idiots who hold a belief out of irrational ideology does not mean that the belief is necessarily false. "Global warming" as you describe it is indeed a politicized issue with moonbat followers, but there is certainly sufficient theory and data to make human caused climate change a real issue, worthy of the title "science" if you like.
Don't you mean another good issue for anti-intellectuals like Palin to make themselves look like fools?
This is just conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. Why "suppress" it? No one "suppressed" it... it just wasn't used or reported because it's a silly report that offers no original research and builds fallacious claims off credible science.
"Believers" do debate this in the open, among their peers. That's what things like conferences and peer reviewed journals are for. Further, EPA "scientists" didn't write this report, some economist working for the EPA did, and after skimming this thing I would say he IS a naive fool.
Absolutely. If you believe global warming is a joke you're either uneducated in the matter or you're not logical. The earth has been warming slowly from 1900-1950 and rapidly from 1950-present. The facts clearly show this, however we have to ask why?
I'm pretty sure I have read more than one article claiming anywhere from an 8-12 year DECLINE in temperatures. I'm also quite sure it's been very mild the last 2 summers I can remember here. I also thought we went from calling it "global warming" to "climate change" because of the decreasing temperatures.
Maybe we are the cause of climate change and maybe we're not. What we are doing is polluting this planet and there will be consequences. Personally I would like to breath clean fresh air and drink chemical free water. Fertile soil would be a good idea as well. Unfortunately greed will continue to prevail over common sense.
It's not that we don't know what to do, we're just to lazy to do it. Even where curbside recycling is available there are those who are simply to lazy to do it. To me it's simple, think globally and act locally. One doesn't have to be a tree hugger, just do their part.
The difference between a peer reviewed article and something we read about online is substantial. Sorry, but If thats what you read then it wasn't peer reviewed or correct.
The ten hottest years in the past 100,000 years or so have all occurred in the last 20, the very hottest being recent. I can't speak for the last two years, but I have heard from several people this summer could be " the year without a summer" for people in the northern parts of America. I guess it happens every decade or so when the jet stream shifts and blows cold air down from Canada.
Hi Five! Yes, that felt good to hear! And even better you live in..... oh. Well at least the Canucks are smart!
Nobody today wants to hear about sustainable living or environmentally sound practices. At least as a culture those ideas fall on deaf ears. We say that we want a better future so we buy hybrids and eat organic corn, but the reality is we just consume too much for our nation or this world to survive. As an example, Americans consume many times the volume of fuel, food, and worthless crap like ipods and big screen t.v.'s than any other nation. If the whole world consumed like America, this planet would run out of resources within fifty years.
So, we eat tons of food, buy lot's of clothes, and ride everywhere in our inefficient vehicles that guzzle gas and we have a nation of overweight, self indulgent people that destroy the environment. Big surprise....
The conservative movement is trying to come up with anything and everything to debunk global warming because it's connected with our nations economy, lifestlye, and even spiritual nature. Because these things are so hard to change, most of us would rather not see how all of our problems are connected. If we localize food, decrease fuel consumption, decrease consumer indulgence and eat greener food we will be healthier, have a better environment and be more self aware.
So in short, global warming might not be caused by CO2 emissions, but then again it might be too. At least it gives us an excuse to adjust our lifestyles and become more aware of what's happening to us.
Hi Five! Yes! lol...
Anyway, I basically agree. I would only add this: this is a no-win, can't make everyone happy, situation. There are two choices here, either keep the cost of goods low in the short term, or enact the changes needed for an environmentally sustainable economy. As far as I can tell you cannot have both. Will cap and trade and all these other environmentally based laws increase prices? yup. Will cap and trade or other current environmental laws have an effect? Who knows. I'm not for cap and trade or any of the other current environmental laws simply because I honestly don't know what difference they will make. I do know though that the sort of laws we need in order to sustain our economy environmentally will had the same sort of advise prices that cap and trade will.
On a side note, this is general problem with our economy as a whole... it's not sustainable. What is funny is that the same republicans and conservatives that cry about spending more then we earn see no problem spending more environmental capital then can be sustained.