The EPA has quashed a politically incorrect study. Meanwhile, Jim Hansen, non-climate scientist, goes around shouting from the rooftops that he’s being silenced.
More here:
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
After all the complaints about the Bush administration’s “war on science,” the self-righteous hypocrisy of these people is sickening.
Don’t forget complaints about secrecy too. Where’s the press on this? Oh wait, they’re on their knees in the WH briefing room. Too bad Jake Tapper is the only real journalist from the big 3 in there .
In before some retard tries and argue a man with an undergrad in Physics from Caltech isn’t really a scientist!
“In before some retard tries and argue a man with an undergrad in Physics from Caltech isn’t really a scientist!’
Some grammar would be helpful to those of us who can’t read your mind.
Members of the ‘reality’ based community are tring to claim the spiked report writer was a blasphemer to ague against their warmist dogma.
Their basis is because he has a PhD for Harvard in Economics, he is no Scientist.
Of course they ignore his BS in Physics from CalTech.
It is neither hypocritical, nor self-righteousness. It is Disinformation, as Lenin wrote about it. It is yet another case of American citizens making war on their fellow citizens.
Fortunately, these misanthropes have the Light-Bringer(TM) in the White House. The 0ne(TM) is a rookie politician, and an empty suit, too. He has gotten rolled by the most egregious of the nutcases in the Congress, and by the most malign sovereigns overseas.
The country is in the best of hands — ours, if we but recover our shared duties as citizens of a republic.
Rand
Here is the final report in its released form.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/
“The 0ne(TM) is a rookie politician”
It is like Rand pointed out a way back in the election. Senators make bad President. All they do is run 3 legged races with the Congress.
The amazing part of this fiasco is the discussion of how many practicing scientists and engineers the EPA was able to track down internally to -do- this report. They said they could only find “a half-person equivalent” to spare on it. Which is why it ended up with people who aren’t research scientists in the hard sciences or practicing engineers – and instead ended up ending up with people more comfortable with actuarial tables and other softer disciplines.
In addition to his other unsavory activities, James Hansen has also indulged himself in the rather non-scientific behavior of calling for the prosecution and imprisonment of those who disagree with him.
Telling Carlin he could not talk to anyone about his report was outrageous. McGartland should be fired or disciplined, and he and the EPA administrator owe Carlin an apology.
Don’t forget complaints about secrecy too. Where’s the press on this?
Jon Stewart had a good segment on Thursday; click my name to watch.
Citing so-called Comedy Central pseudo-news shows as proof that the state owned media is covering an issue may not have the effect you intend. Or are you just citing your only sources of information? Even out in the middle of nowhere in Montana or Nevada there always seems to be an NPR station, or are they too right-wing for you?
(Just giving you the same treatment you’d give to someone who dared to cite Limbaugh or Hannity the way you keep citing self-proclaimed clowns.)
Yeah, I think it’s been a ‘political war on science’ and people just get quiet when their side isn’t being silenced.
There is no war on science. There *is* a war between the control freaks and the rest of us, and “science” is merely a tool to be used (or not) as the political power plays require it.
For the rest of us, science is a method of developing reproducible results, and understanding why they happen, so that we can develop NEW reproducible results.
Don’t tell the Administration, though. That would interfere with their meta-narratives.
Dennis, read this analysis very very carefully :
suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa
Inconvenient Anal-ysis
Read this about page very very carefully. Quoting partisan websites with an axe to grind is, to quote McGartland, ” not helpful”. Also, you’re missing the point which doesn’t surprise me. The point is, the EPA suppressed information to help an ideological point of view. That is bad or wrong as opposed to right.
http://deepclimate.org/about/
So now well supported consensus science is ‘ideological’.
That’s like saying the government should fund creationists.
The report is clearly nonsense, and the EPA was right here.
That’s like saying the government should fund creationists.
No, it’s not. What an idiotic comment.
Inconvenient Anal Probe
“So now well supported consensus science is ‘ideological’.”
What a nice non-sequitur. Since you demonstrate reading comprehension difficulties, I will explain. The suppresion of the report was to help pass a bill that even its supporters admit won’t do much to stop CO2 emissions.
The suppression of the report was to help pass a bill that even its supporters admit won’t do much to stop CO2 emissions.
I fixed your spelling.
The suppression of the report was because it was NONSENSE.
Subsequently it was discovered that not only it was nonsense, it was PLAGERIZED from an Exxon funded crank’s blog, and it was UNSOLICITED nonsense. If these gentleman wanted to publish it, they had every right to submit it to a peer reviewed scientific journal, where it would have been returned with a polite dismissal. Certainly they couldn’t self publish it, since they were doing it on US taxpayer time and money without permission of their bosses. You really don’t get it, do you?
Actually, it was a TYPO. So when you can show me an EMAIL from McGartland that says that, I’ll believe you. You’re really a true believer, aren’t you? Converts make the worst ZEALOTS. I think anonymous ZEALOTS are the worst of all.
BTW, you should have more information before using bold text on me!
Good DAY, sir!
The EPA also said in its statement: “The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding.”
So when you can show me an EMAIL from McGartland that says that, I’ll believe you.
It’s clear from a superficial reading by anyone with any serious science training in the hard sciences, climate science, planetary science or physics.
The article by Carlin is TRIPE. You just can’t understand that.
The article by Carlin is TRIPE. You just can’t understand that.
No, we understand quite clearly that you are a religious zealot.
It’s clear from a superficial reading by anyone with any serious science training in the hard sciences, climate science, planetary science or physics.
I gather you think you have serious science training. Perhaps then you know what happens when an experimenter starts throwing out data that they think is bad merely because it doesn’t conform to the model they are testing? In any case, deciding to “move forward” while squashing contrary evidence (even if the evidence was collected or presented in a scientifically flawed way) is not a scientific decision. It is a political decision.
Inconvenient Anal Itch
“It’s clear from a superficial reading by anyone with any serious science training in the hard sciences, climate science, planetary science or physics.”
Keep moving those goal posts. So why did the EPA incorporate some of it into their finding? This will make your head explode. The EPA used some of his report so that shoots down your first reason for keeping him quiet. The almost head shed didn’t say anything about it being tripe but did say his contrary opinion wasn’t helpful to their objective. His report WAS reviewed by his peers at the EPA and they STILL used parts of it. So, are the EPA scientists stupid or corrupt or could he actually have had pertinent data to add? After you glue your head back together and consult whoever it is you’re checking with, get back to me.
In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding
Apparently they included issues raised by skeptics in their analysis, and concluded that they were nonsense. And plagiarizing blog posts of a known paid disinformant isn’t generally considered to be ‘data’ in the realm of science.
Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West’s statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this “evidence”, they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.
Devastating eh?
One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.
The paper is so retarded it’s laughable. You guys need to consider yourself lucky that this planet has ample heat reservoirs (polar, glacial and Greenland ice and deep ice) to absorb the nonsense you emit.
Our tolerance for your nonsense is only going to last so long.
Sorry, that should have been ‘deep ocean’.’ That cool water is the only thing that’s saving your asses. Enjoy it while it lasts. It’s very cool here right now after that last front blew through. Global warming is off, eh?
“Our tolerance for your nonsense is only going to last so long.”
Why you cowardly little fascist peckerwood. You go right ahead and bring your little army of fuzznuts to my house, please.
Why you cowardly little fascist peckerwood. You go right ahead and bring your little army of fuzznuts to my house, please.
Your bullets should provide you with ample protection against wars, missiles, disease, pestilence, famine, natural disasters and hoards of hungry liberals. They’re very effective against heat as well, I hear.
So go ahead, burn your trees and furniture, that will keep you warm.
Start indoctrinating your children and grandchildren now, they’ll need it.
Our tolerance for your nonsense is only going to last so long.
So what? Intolerance either means nothing (that is, it is indistinguishable from your “tolerance”) or it means you’ve left behind the protection of society. Maybe you can pull off a Lenin-style revolution. More likely you’ll provide a pretext to get squished like a bug, a non-endangered species bug, of course.
Intolerance either means nothing (that is, it is indistinguishable from your “tolerance”) or it means you’ve left behind the protection of society.
It means that rational minds will prevail and obtain vast majorities in both the congress and the senate, and you’ll be further marginalized into the paranoid psychotic anti-science fringe group that you already are. The fact that you associated intolerance with violence labels you.
Back to the subject, I’ve already pointed out peer reviewed papers that demonstrate the positive feedback nature of water vapor, and clearly the globe is NOT cooling :
1999/plot/hadcrut3vgl/
The median prediction for 2100 is 10 degrees of warming. Clearly your house will do fine, what do you propose your grandchildren do about it?
Buy more bullets?
Here is the actual EPA response :
Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.
Furthermore, Carlin’s plagiarized pseudoscientific sceed had nothing to do with the climate bill, rather it predated that entirely as was a response to the EPA carbon dioxide endangerment ruling.
It would be great if for once you guys could get your facts straight.
Don’t you have memo software or something?
The little fascist
I’m talking to YOU and ONLY you. You just made a threat to me. Don’t try to weasel out of it with smug references to your supposed superiority. You are a coward. You hide behind anonymity and claim to be smarter than everyone else by quoting works you didn’t produce. You also are operating under a misconception that you will get your way when the majority of Americans disagree with you. Enjoy your change, it won’t last long. Now, bugger off, you wanker.
You just made a threat to me.
You aren’t worth the trouble.
You are a coward.
I’m here, aren’t I? I will no longer tolerate your disinformation you spew becasue of your complete inability to understand complex scientific concepts. In other words, I’m confronting you, with evidence, in the form of links to peer reviewed data and results. For some reason you think I’m going to show up at your house, with picket signs and flyers.
That’s outright paranoia. The local gun dealers must love you.
You hide behind anonymity and claim to be smarter than everyone else by quoting works you didn’t produce.
I’m smarter than YOU because I can understand the works of others, and are willing to fund them so that you others can understand YOU.
I’m also smarter than you because I publish. All you do is spew.