Did EPA Suppress Global Warming Study?

[gsvol]

I would look forward to those with better insight and knowledge commenting on this story.

I'll take that category for $600 Alex!

The Orwelian memory hole didn't end up to be all it was cracked up to be by the inventor or the internet.

Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they’re dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it’s forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.


But here’s what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960 then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it’s bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest men of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.


And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.

Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of email threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.

Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks and the expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life – all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC, in turn, bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists as CRU – largely from tree ring data -- who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.


Bottom line: CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such -- all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be re-examined.


Gotcha. We’ve known they’ve been lying all along, and now we can prove it.

It’s time to bring sanity back to this debate.

 

[volfanjustin]

Climate Change is REAL, Global Warming caused by man is a myth. Weather patterns over the course of the past few thousand years prove that, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to stop getting all their info from the liberal media or talk radio. Google is a helluva drug.

Absolutely, climate change is real. But there is not a thing we can do to cause it or stop it. This man made global warming is a scam. These morons are pushing this to crap to make money and to try to bring our economy to a crash even more than it already is. And the cap and tax bill is dead.

 

[TennTradition]

Climate Change is REAL, Global Warming caused by man is a myth. Weather patterns over the course of the past few thousand years prove that, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to stop getting all their info from the liberal media or talk radio. Google is a helluva drug.

I think you are over-simplifying it, Eric. Weather patterns over the course of thousands of years in the past in no way PROVE whether or not a new forcing on the climate will (or will not have) an impact on future weather patterns. Honestly, using google to treat a liberal-overdose on GW is just as dangerous as using wikipedia, facts unchecked. There are a lot of websites out there that regurgitate the same basic information, which is usually true (in total or in part), but the conclusions drawn from it not always are. If you wanted to convince yourself that climate change is real, some different searches could do so. At some point, we start culling information into what we believe and what we don't....fundamental bias/beliefs/hunches come into play with regard to google searches because the vast amount of information necessitates personal filters.

A good example is the whole "CO2 had lagged temperature in the past, not the other way around. CO2 doesn't drive temperature, temperature drives CO2." The sentence is fact, the second is only half-true. CO2 can drive temperature, but temperature also drives CO2.

This is just one example. There are a lot of others. There are agendas at work here, but there is also meat behind the agendas, and that is what I am interested in. Not everyone that wants climate legislation espouses the agendas that Inhoffe talks about. But, of course, some do.

Just because some people latch onto something with an agenda doesn't necessarily mean that it becomes myth. It does mean that it can become overstated, which is what we really need to be concerned with, IMO. Not whether or not it is myth, because in my opinion it clearly is not. The question is extent and effects - but we won't have that discussion, because the politics of the two sides aren't going to allow the concessions necessary to do so.

 

[OrangeYankee]

This has been the problem for a long time in this debate. Both sides have their shills, but what concerns me is most people only point out the ones on the side of industry. Sure, if a scientist who works for a coal mining company comes out and says "Data does not support global warming" I am going to be a tad skeptical. However, I feel most of the man made global warming scientists seem to be in public institutions that are funded by Government Entities that are salavating over the prospect of being able to have control over entire industries (Cap and Trade and the likes), and most people accept their findings a whole lot easier. Will the truth every be properly found? I'm not sure because of the tug of war going on between two sides that would benefit greatly if their "side" ends up being right.

 

[KB5252]

This has been the problem for a long time in this debate. Both sides have their shills, but what concerns me is most people only point out the ones on the side of industry. Sure, if a scientist who works for a coal mining company comes out and says "Data does not support global warming" I am going to be a tad skeptical. However, I feel most of the man made global warming scientists seem to be in public institutions that are funded by Government Entities that are salavating over the prospect of being able to have control over entire industries (Cap and Trade and the likes), and most people accept their findings a whole lot easier. Will the truth every be properly found? I'm not sure because of the tug of war going on between two sides that would benefit greatly if their "side" ends up being right.

I think you hit on a very important point. There is so much controversy on the subject because no one really knows what to believe. Both sides have muddied the water on the issue. Clearly those who work for certain industries are compromised, those who benefit from government grants and the proposed cap and trade system are equally compromised. Like it or not global warming issues have become big business. The way cap and trade has been set up I simply cannot see any possible benefit for society other than just another way to make money and tax the people.

We certainly need to be proactive about environmental issues but there has to be better ways to reach this goal. To determine what we must do we must first better understand exactly what impact we have on global temperature. We simply do not know the answers, or at least we do not have a clear picture as to what is natural and man made, the variables are simply too complicated to assign cause and percentages at this time.

 

[TennTradition]

I think that cuts can be made at estimated temperature rise, with some sort of probability...but then come the questions of what will the effects of this temperature rise be. These are even harder to answer.

I haven't gone through all of the emails that are being referenced in this latest 'scandal'. But, my initial thought is that it probably uncovers some bias on the part of those who work in the area when addressing the concerns of those who think it is a myth. It also likely uncovers differing opinion in how to address things because of the innate uncertainty in this area. There may be some significant issues uncovered here. However, my thought is that most of it really isn't that big of a deal, but it will be used to plant another seed of doubt.

The people who do not want climate legislation will win their battle if they continue to muddy the waters and plant seeds of doubt, unless congress delivers a huge FU to the people and then get voted out of office. I'm not sure if this is the best result, but it is the probable result, IMO.

 

[KB5252]

I think that cuts can be made at estimated temperature rise, with some sort of probability...but then come the questions of what will the effects of this temperature rise be. These are even harder to answer.

I haven't gone through all of the emails that are being referenced in this latest 'scandal'. But, my initial thought is that it probably uncovers some bias on the part of those who work in the area when addressing the concerns of those who think it is a myth. It also likely uncovers differing opinion in how to address things because of the innate uncertainty in this area. There may be some significant issues uncovered here. However, my thought is that most of it really isn't that big of a deal, but it will be used to plant another seed of doubt.

The people who do not want climate legislation will win their battle if they continue to muddy the waters and plant seeds of doubt, unless congress delivers a huge FU to the people and then get voted out of office. I'm not sure if this is the best result, but it is the probable result, IMO.

I agree but I get the feeling from your post that you are neglecting the cases of fudging the data that have already been brought out for those that are supporters of legislation aimed at global warming. This has muddied the water as well, maybe even much worse since much of it has been "scientific" studies.

If we look at the proposed legislation from a practical standpoint it becomes very hard to point to any area and say, there, this part will protect the environment. As it is written today it is much more of a money making endeavor that doesn't really produce much in the way of positives for the environment.

I respect your views and knowledge on this subject, you were the person I wanted to comment on this new story in particular. As it stands now it appears to me that the costs will be astronomical and will produce very little benefit for the environment.

 

[TennTradition]

I agree but I get the feeling from your post that you are neglecting the cases of fudging the data that have already been brought out for those that are supporters of legislation aimed at global warming. This has muddied the water as well, maybe even much worse since much of it has been "scientific" studies.

If we look at the proposed legislation from a practical standpoint it becomes very hard to point to any area and say, there, this part will protect the environment. As it is written today it is much more of a money making endeavor that doesn't really produce much in the way of positives for the environment.

I respect your views and knowledge on this subject, you were the person I wanted to comment on this new story in particular. As it stands now it appears to me that the costs will be astronomical and will produce very little benefit for the environment.

To your point about muddying the waters from a believability of the science standpoint, evidence of 'fudged' data can certainly do that. I am extremely swamped for the next year so I haven't gone into great detail into the emails, etc. Do you have a good source to point to that would allow me to what data was fudged and how specifically it was used? I assume we aren't talking about Mann's hockey stick here....

 

[KB5252]

To your point about muddying the waters from a believability of the science standpoint, evidence of 'fudged' data can certainly do that. I am extremely swamped for the next year so I haven't gone into great detail into the emails, etc. Do you have a good source to point to that would allow me to what data was fudged and how specifically it was used? I assume we aren't talking about Mann's hockey stick here....

Admittedly I am only going by second hand sources but there are many reports I've heard about things such as data collection sites being in a known subduction zone that would skew the data, things such as this is what I am talking about. There are many things I have heard of that lead me to wonder if the books haven't been cooked at least in some sense.

I don't know anything about Mann's hockey sticks, care to explain it for me?

 

[TennTradition]

Admittedly I am only going by second hand sources but there are many reports I've heard about things such as data collection sites being in a known subduction zone that would skew the data, things such as this is what I am talking about. There are many things I have heard of that lead me to wonder if the books haven't been cooked at least in some sense.

I don't know anything about Mann's hockey sticks, care to explain it for me?

The Mann hockey stick controversy is fairly old now, so that is why I assumed we weren't talking about it in this latest go around. It is tied to the reconstructed temperature record that was created by Mann, et al. and published several years ago. When you perform temperature reconstructions, you have to use proxy data, such as tree rings. Basically, there can be a lot of statistical noise in these efforts and when Mann, et al. got done, what they had was a temperature record that looked like a hockey stick, with rapidly accelerating temperature in the last 50 years (and no medieval warming period). The problem was tied to a statistics and the way the graph was generated - apparently they failed to center the mean. I am not a statistician, but apparently this caused early fluctuations to lessen in magnitude and later fluctuations to be exaggerated int their temperature reconstruction. Honest mistake? Known chicanery? I don't know. They were not statisticians, so it is entirely possible that they committed the error without knowing. They still argue that the data is meaningful and have since published other proxies with data beyond what they published in the first go-around. Regardless, the first plot made it into the IPCC assessment report and led some to question the conclusions of the document when this statistical error was uncovered.

 

[BeecherVol]

Man made Global Warming is a hoax, and is being exploited by the Al Gores of the world, for profit. If this doesn't stick, they will move on to something else.

 

[Oldvol75]

Man made Global Warming is a hoax, and is being exploited by the Al Gores of the world, for profit. If this doesn't stick, they will move on to something else.

The Ice Age, maybe an Asteroid, deep frying turkey,who knows!

 

[BeecherVol]

The Ice Age, maybe an Asteroid, deep frying turkey,who knows!

Sounds plausable.

 

[tim]

TT when you get to the bottom of this please come back and tell us what's going on. So until then get to work.

BTW I'm not a believer, but I'm of the opinion that what we put out there can't be good.

 

[BeecherVol]

Don't get confussed in the fact, that the liberals sole purpose for this scare, (because thats all it is) has little to do with their worries about our enviroment.

Think $, and more government control (which equals more taxes)

 

[gsvol]

The people who do not want climate legislation will win their battle if they continue to muddy the waters and plant seeds of doubt, unless congress delivers a huge FU to the people and then get voted out of office. I'm not sure if this is the best result, but it is the probable result, IMO.

That battle is already won.

There will be no binding treaty made in Hopenhagen.

The US crap and tax bill is absolutely dead in the water.

In Mexico next year there will not any agreement reached other than more BS nonbinding resolutions.

Three reasons:

1. Global warming ain't happening, all the glitz and soaring rhetoric of Barry and company, LSM spin and propaganda cannot erase some facts such as prior predictions of the IPCC havn't proven to be true, the very foundation of the global warming hypothesis is irrevocably tainted by the discloser of the fact that those who have written the scientific papers have doctored the evidence in order to give credibility to those who believe (sometimes religiously) in GW.

2. Other world leaders will not sign on without the USA taking the lead.

3. Next year is another election year and there are plenty of those legislators who aren't ready to be turned out to pasture which is exactly what will happen to some if they vote to pass the idiotic C&T bill which (according to the GAO) will cost each family $6,000+ annually in indirect taxes while doing zilch to solve the so-called problem.

 

[gsvol]

BTW I'm not a believer, but I'm of the opinion that what we put out there can't be good.

 

[TennTradition]

I guess that depends on how you define 'battle.' If you think that the political battle is won for good with no chance of limits being imposed in the future, then you're off base, IMO. I do think that this most recent round of discussions has been largely stalled to the point of being dead in the near-term, so if that is what you mean by battle, then I can see that. Perhaps I mean the 'war.'

 

[gsvol]

Don't get confussed in the fact, that the liberals sole purpose for this scare, (because thats all it is) has little to do with their worries about our enviroment.

Think $, and more government control (which equals more taxes)

Step 1: Create a crisis that can’t be proven.

Step 2: Try to make people believe taxing stuff is a proper solution for anything.

Step 3: Get the entertainment industry and the drive-by media behind it.

Step 4: Stuff it down America’s throat before they know what hit them.

That is the Democrat way.

http://jimbobmail.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cow-fart-taxes-copy.jpg

Can anyone down size that picture, I seem to have forgotten how use the html thingie.

 

[gsvol]

I guess that depends on how you define 'battle.' If you think that the political battle is won for good with no chance of limits being imposed in the future, then you're off base, IMO. I do think that this most recent round of discussions has been largely stalled to the point of being dead in the near-term, so if that is what you mean by battle, then I can see that. Perhaps I mean the 'war.'

You can attempt to gloss over Mann's deliberate attempt at deception all you want but his crediility is irrevocably

and currently it is my understanding that the head of the GRU has been given a few days to step down gracefully. We see what happens.

Now let me ask you to put aside your wonderful talent for the use of semantics for a moment, leave out all thoughts of chemistry etc and consider world history.

Let's say the the IPCC predictions of a century long warming trend is true (even though direct observable indications are that the opposite is happening.)

Now what did we have during the little ice age???

Plague, strife, food riots and wars, the dark ages.
(we also have observed that during ice ages the arid places in the world become even more arid because a considerable amount of water is unavailable because it is frozen somewhere or another.)

Back before that we had a warmer planet than we have now and what did we get??

The renaissance, huge and lasting advances in science art and almost everything else.

The world produced Masacio, Manegna, Rafael, Michelangelo, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Dante, Ariiosto, Nicola Pisano and many many others.

Even if we are now facing a century of gradual warming why not just embrace it and be thankful, why fight it tooth and nail as if it were the end of the world???

Somebody 'splain that to me, I don't get it.

BTW, the ethanol mandate should be repealed immediatly, that is the most idiotic legislation ever forced on the American people. (at least of what I can think of right now, given that there is an overabundance of idiotic government programs around.)

 

[gsvol]

The Ice Age, maybe an Asteroid, deep frying turkey,who knows!

Politics 101

1. If it moves, tax it.
2. If it breathes, tax it.
3. If it smells, tax it.
4. If it complains, tax it.
5. If it dies, tax it.
6. If it pays off in cash, subsidize it.
7. If it votes right, subsidize it.
8. If it might vote right, grant amnesty.
9. ... and etc ...

BTW, if you take in much of that carbon offset money (5 bucks or more), maybe I could interest you in investing in my Grinder's Switch frog gig factory!!!!

Good whittlers command top wages and there's that dog gone lag time between when they go to work and when I can get the all the mail orders filled and cash the checks and how can I find time to go to the bank when Auburn and Bama are engaged in the Iron bowl anyway!!

BTW, Aub 21, Bama 17 late in 3rd qtr.

I'll explain how the GSFG works after the game but it is endorsed by such notables as Rod Brassfield, Bashful Brother Oswald and Happy Forester. Roy Acuff wanted to invest a fortune but he got into politics and lost all his money.

The GSFR has the Humane Society stamp of approval because it is totally painless to frogs!!!!!!!

 

[BeecherVol]

BTW. Bama 26 AU 21.

Bama fans have increased Global Warming by 20% with all their hot air.

Where is Gore when you need him.