Global Warming A Hoax

[primetime]

I know this topic has been beat to death, but new information has come to light. The U.S. EPA buried two studies that stated there was no such thing as global warming. The question is what effect will this have on solar and wwind energy, cars, and other new green initiative.

[digitalcat]

I know this topic has been beat to death, but new information has come to light. The U.S. EPA buried two studies that stated there was no such thing as global warming. The question is what effect will this have on solar and wwind energy, cars, and other new green initiative.

Umm please show study... was it done by Exxon?

[Hobbes]

I know this topic has been beat to death, but new information has come to light. The U.S. EPA buried two studies that stated there was no such thing as global warming. The question is what effect will this have on solar and wwind energy, cars, and other new green initiative.

Did put your socks on the wrong way around this morning? Hit the wrong cereals?

Want to know about who and why distorted, surpressed and tried to bury climate change research including those by the EPA and the USGS?

Well, try some of these for starters:

http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/5.html.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/11/11greenwire-leaked-epa-draft-highlights-new-research-on-he-10084.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-24-10.asp

http://www.grist.org/article/Buried-in-the-Bush/

Now there is a scandal there buried somewhere for sure.

:roll:

[Bruce551]

June 29, 2009

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Betraying the Planet

By PAUL KRUGMAN

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn?t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason ? treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe ? a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable ? can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there?s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing ? that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves ? the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation ? may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we?re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself.

How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking ? if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided ? they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn?t see people who?ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don?t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they?ve decided not to believe in it ? and they?ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday?s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a ?hoax? that has been ?perpetrated out of the scientific community.? I?d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists ? a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun?s declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I?m almost reluctant to mention the deniers? dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill?s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn?t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is ? and that?s why it?s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an ?existential threat? to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole ? but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it?s in their political interest to pretend that there?s nothing to worry about. If that?s not betrayal, I don?t know what is.

[primetime]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

[primetime]

A 2 paragraph excerpt from that report.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

[GoodKarma]

A 2 paragraph excerpt from that report.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

That is a great enjoyable report it is actually brilliant.

not to debunk it or anything. I wonder what is causing the rash of violent hurricanes?

I suspect its not the increase of ocean temperatures by fraction

of degrees each year like suspected?

maybe its the rash of violent earthquakes each year that is causing the earth violently rattle and causint it to tilt a fraction of a degree off of it's axis therefore affecting sun emmisions that is affecting global temperatures. who knows.

I will honestly must say im not a scientist. but I do keep an open mind to read about this topic. I actually enjoy the affects of violent hurricanes the ocean surf creates great waves to surf on during these times.

however what I have read. about carbon emissions causing global temp increase logically make sense to me. and creating an illusion that global warming doesn't exist also makes perfect sense to me as well.

imagine a world without industrial products plastics, gas for your car, energy to warm your house or cool your house, computers, microchips. how would we function without these things. So the current minority consensus which used to be the majority by the way, now that we are seeing visual effects of this phenom global warming.. says do not tinker with an 18th centry model that we currently use in the 20th centry their plead is

" please don't it will disrupt the natural flow of things."

Getting rid of existing carbon emissions not alone creating more emissions. which is making the problem worse. However their plead is right on point. a lot of toes would have to be stepped on to re- work this current model. they are right it will have an economically drastic world wide affect. lost jobs etc. some places on the planet will not only lose jobs but would completely lose their GNP altogether and cease to exist. which would make this current global downturn recession look like (mickey mouse.) so I can see how this would affect a politician and his or her view on this subject.

(global warming is gradual) some years and i am not refering to a couple its 10 or so years so you will of course be in visual denial. you will not get polar ice cap deplitions some years you will not get violent hurricanes or el nina's the earth just like us is a living planet or organism it trys and will suceed in correcting the effects of pollution which invades its natural balance. some years it will not.

just as when your body gets a cold it fights off the invader

of course sometimes the body doesn't fight it off and its fatal.

the way I look at global warming its gradual your eyes see the effects but they are so minor that you remain in denial probably because they are not in your face results.

reminds me of a wooden cabinet that looked great on the outside but became the victim of termintes as you know termites will eat under the wood they will keep your visual senses in denial. and one day you touch the wood you make a hole in the item or it just crumbles right in your hand by then of course its too late only if you got rid of the termites in time. you of course wouldnt have lost your favorite cabinet.

one day... not when im alive probably... but one day someone willl wake up and their favorite planet will be unlivable not dead but half dead. who knows with all fairness maybe this brilliant report is on the money or on point with this topic.

solution diagnostics: just as the global warming phenom is gradual we should be approaching it gradually as well using affective measures to wean off of the suspected. fossil fuels that create this global warming earth condition. why not it wouldn't hurt if you did it progressively.

so ask yourself if you could take precautions from getting sick as a dog getting a very bad virus or cold would you do so or not? or would you say its bound to happen. im gonna get sick anyway why bother?

don't get rid of the great model, change the way it runs. run it more efficiently. its about time to do so and it's acutally long overdue.

[eagle]

I'm doing remodeling work for an 80 year old guy who insists there is no Global warming its just the ice age is over and ya know. There are definitely 2 versions of the story and it is once again repos verses demos ,righty and lefty

Both sides make sense and have evidence. I'm more concerned about population and drinking water and food, wetlands and ocean algae and coral reefs. I guess the world glaciers are just finishing up their normal meltdown I don't know, this is my first time coming out of an ice age. Its a shame cause Mt Kilamanjaro would have made an awesome ski resort :twisted:

[eagle]

I know this topic has been beat to death, but new information has come to light. The U.S. EPA buried two studies that stated there was no such thing as global warming. The question is what effect will this have on solar and wwind energy, cars, and other new green initiative.

I wouldn't listen too much to the EPA as they are almost Monsantos they have exchanged so many employees. Government studies are manipulated IMO Go elsewhere and check all the opinions of respectable scientists around the world and then make your decision.

[PJack]

Personally, I just don't care about global warming. I can't get next to it. I am sorry but it does not stir me to action to read and decide for myself if it is actually happening or not. I dont really care. There are so many other things that occupy my thoughts.

[Neo]

I know this topic has been beat to death, but new information has come to light. The U.S. EPA buried two studies that stated there was no such thing as global warming. The question is what effect will this have on solar and wwind energy, cars, and other new green initiative.

Ok, so I read the article.

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT.

Not a climatologist. This guy's specialty is economics

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years;

Wrong.

Anyone who can be bothered looking at a graph can see he's making this up.

that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

This is a perfect example of anti global warming myths.

The sun myth is the number one amongst disproven sceptic theories.

Seems that this guy got fired from the project for being a dumbass and now he's proving it by spewing his garbage into the media.