|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24~25~26..30~31~32 [Next] | ||||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-06-15 17:25, tommy wrote: Have you read it yet, Tommy? What about this report makes it worthy of our consideration? Why do you believe that the economist Alan Carlin has provided a reasonable critique of the EPA's position of greenhouse gases? John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
Gore is a huge investor in oil! He used his position to make money off oil. He also makes a living speaking so yes he is making a fortune off of the environment. My dad seriously considered leaving the nuclear industry to become an anti nuc speaker because it paid so well.
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Who is we? Didn’t you say you can't speak for anyone else John?
I can't speak for anyone else, but what we have here is a fellow Alan Carlin, high up in the EPA who asked him to write a report. They expected it to say, something like; Yes global warming is man made, terrible and we need loads of money from taxing the people to fight it. However what it did say was, sorry guys, we have made a big mistake. This man made global warming is a load of BS. Well they did not like that and so they told him to rewrite it, and he refused. So they suppressed it. It seems to me.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Did you read the report? Are you aware that his bibliography contains reference to an Astrologer?
And where does it say the EPA asked him to write it? He says in the introduction that he wrote it as a response to an EPA document during a "comment period". Why should anyone take it more seriously than any other web document? John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Say hello to my little friend Alan Carlin: The EPA’s Inconvenient Voice. At 8:45 a.m. EDT on the June 30 edition of "Fox and Friends," EPA Senior Operations Research Analyst Alan Carlin, told interviewer Steve Doocy that his 98-page study that questioned the science behind global warming and called for the EPA to stop depending on reports from the United Nations, was ignored by his supervisor who refused to forward the report on because Carlin’s “comments do not help the legal policy or case” for the EPA’s position on global warming. So I read on the net.
What about your questions makes them worthy of our consideration?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Have you read the report?
Can you make any comments about its content? The fact that Carlin makes claims on Fox and Friends leads us where? But we've been through this before Tommy. You don't read things, you just post them and defend them. Not sure why. Maybe it makes you feel powerful. But until you actually contribute a thought or bit of analysis you are not worth the response. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
From Wikipedia:
In June 2009, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington D.C. based think tank, and Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) claimed that the EPA had suppressed a report authored by Alan Carlin, that cast doubt on the existence of global warming and the need to regulate CO2 emissions. Senator Inhofe wrote a letter to the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, requesting that the agency reopen this matter and called for a congressional investigation of the “suppression”.[3][4] The EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy, responded: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. . . . 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. Additionally, his manager has 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. And this individual was 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." [5] Internal e-mails related to the alleged suppression of Carlin's report were released under the Freedom of Information Act.[6] In them, Carlin, was discouraged by his superior at EPA, Al McGartland, "from filing comments on the proposed finding and told ... that whatever he submitted was not likely to affect the final report, implying that the decision had already been made by early March 2009. After receiving Carlin’s comments, McGartland told him that he would not forward them to the office preparing the final report. 'The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round,' he wrote on March 17. '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.' A few minutes later, he instructed Carlin to 'move on to other issues and subjects.' He also told Carlin not to discuss climate change with anyone outside his immediate office." [7] Carlin also acknowledged in the article that his report had been produced under short deadline and, as critics have said since, was not fully or cleanly sourced, and there was no restriction on his contact with the media. Andy was quoted as calling "the accusation that Carlin had been muzzled for political reasons 'ridiculous.' 'There was no predetermined position on endangerment, and Dr. Carlin’s work was not suppressed,' Andy said in an e-mail response to questions. 'This administration has always welcomed varying scientific points of view, and we received much of it over this process.'" No further Congressional action was reported, in the September report.[7] |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
"The individual in question is not a scientist" Astrologer perhaps?
July, 2009 CURRICULUM VITAE ALAN PHILIP CARLIN Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 1809T Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation Washington, D.C. 20460 Telephone: 202-566-2250 Email: carlin.alan@epa.gov Education: Graduate: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D. (economics, with a major in development) Undergraduate: California Institute of Technology, B.S. with Honor (physics) Fellowships: Ford Foundation Foreign Area--at MIT, 1.5 years, and in India, 1 year Paid positions: Senior Operations Research Analyst, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1983 to present (with many office name changes in between). Carried out research and published papers exclusively on the economics of global climate change control, 2004-present. Four papers published to date with a new paper on the economic benefits of climate change control currently under development. Managed $1.5 to $4 million per year Economic Research Program with most of the leading U.S. academic and non-profit institutions with expertise in environmental economics, 1983-88. Managed numerous research projects involving a total of over $20 million on the economic benefits of environmental pollution control, the use of stated preference techniques to determine the economic benefits of pollution control, the use and the economic and legal aspects of using economic incentives for environmental pollution control, the economic benefits and costs of the Superfund program, full social cost pricing of energy, comparative individual risks of death, the economic costs of pollution control in the United States, and the relationships between environmental quality, economic development, and government institutions, 1983-present. Principal liaison for the Office of Policy with the Office of Research and Development’s National Center for Environmental Research, which resulted in a $2.5 million yearly joint competition in cooperation with the National Science Foundation for research on Decision-making and Valuation for Environmental Policy (DMVEP), 1994 to 1999. Principal author of the resulting DMVEP Requests for Applications, 1995 to 1999. Developed and currently manage one of the most extensive economics sites on the World Wide Web, featuring over 2,600 EPA economics reports including listings for more than 120 reports prepared under projects in most aspects of Curriculum Vitae: Alan Philip Carlin 2 environmental economics that I have managed while at EPA, 1995 to present. Served as the EPA representative on the interagency group reviewing natural resource damage assessment regulations for U.S. Government, 1993-5, and authored EPA’s extensive comments thereon, 1994. EPA coordinator for 250 page EPA report on the use of economic incentives for environmental protection issued January 2001. Provided CONAMA, the Chilean environmental protection agency, with seminars and consultation on the use of cost-benefit analysis and economic incentives in environmental pollution control at their request, Santiago, Chile, March, 1996. Senior Operations Research Analyst, Criteria Development and Special Studies Division, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC--1974-83. Managed EPA extramural program to develop a series of comprehensive, multi-media, multi-disciplinary assessments of the current state of scientific, technical and economic knowledge needed by EPA to regulate particular pollutants or classes of pollutants. Managed multi-million dollar contract with the National Academy of Sciences to produce such assessments as well as other contracts for assessment reports and population risk prepared by other contractors. Provided headquarters coordination for the in-house preparation, review, and publication of Air Quality Criteria and other pollutant assessments by all USEPA Office of Research and Development laboratories. Managed EPA research on the economic benefits of pollution control and the use of economic incentives for pollution control (see 1975-83 listings included at this link). Served as US representative at various OECD and UN Environment Programme environmental and economic meetings. Director, Implementation Research Division, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC--1971-74. Built and directed staff of about 25 in carrying out a new $3 million per year interdisciplinary research program (for some of the output, see pre-1975 listings for projects funded by the Office of Research and Development) on the implementation and economic policy aspects of environmental protection, including the economic benefits of pollution control, energy-environment trade-offs, economics of regulatory and incentive approaches for implementing environmental pollution control, and the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. Staff included PhD physicists, environmental engineers, and biologists, among others. Served as ORD representative on the EPA Energy Policy Committee and as EPA co-coordinator for the interagency Southwest Energy Study. Served as U.S. representative at various OECD meetings dealing with environmental economics. Division produced one of the earliest reports on the potential for US energy conservation, among many other physical and social science research studies. Economist, Economics Department, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California--1963 to 1971. Carried out policy-oriented economic research, Curriculum Vitae: Alan Philip Carlin 3 primarily on economic development, environmental, transportation, and energy problems. Member of advisory groups sent to advise on and evaluate the U.S. Agency for International Development aid programs to India and Turkey, 1965 and 1966. Consultant to the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (Transport Economist), FUNDWI High Level Mission to West Irian--summer 1967. Participated in mission which drew up and evaluated a development plan for Western New Guinea and prepared transportation section of report. Volunteer Member, Editorial Council, Journal of Environmental Economics and positions held: Management, 2 years. Chairman, Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club, 1970-71. Member, Executive Committee, Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club, 3.5 years. Sierra Club activist, 7 years, including 3 years working on the economic aspects of their successful campaign to prevent the construction of dams in the Grand Canyon. Principal fields: Environmental economics research and policy; environmental science; economics and science of global climate change control; development economics; energy economics and science; transportation economics; project evaluation and cost-benefit analysis; research grant administration; World Wide Web site development, database management, and Web publication. Awards: EPA bronze medals for the production of the report Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment, 1991, for The United States Experience with Economic Incentives to Control Environmental Pollution, 1992, and for participation in the development of the Environmental Economics Research Strategy, 2006. Weldon Heald Conservation Award, the highest conservation award conferred by the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, 1972. It is awarded to a Sierra Club member who has provided long-term and outstanding service to the Angeles Chapter in the field of conservation. PUBLICATIONS—see homepage SELECTED RECENT PRESENTATIONS . 2008 “Why a New Approach is Required if Global Climate Change Is to Be Controlled Efficiently or Even at All,” William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Symposium on Emission Not Accomplished: The Future of Carbon Emissions in a Changing World, Williamsburg, VA, February 2. 2006 “Global Climate Control: Is There a Better Strategy than Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Symposium on Responses to Global Curriculum Vitae: Alan Philip Carlin 4 Warming: The Law, Economics, and Science of Climate Change, Philadelphia, PA, November 17. 2003 “The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment” at Library of Congress, Washington, DC, January 9. 2002 “United States Policy on Controlling Pollution from Large Industrial Point Sources with an Emphasis on the Use of Economic Incentives,” at European Commission-sponsored conference on “Prevention and Control of Industrial Pollution: International Conference on Policy Approaches,” Seville, Spain, April 25-6. TRAVEL to over 60 countries and all seven continents, including many developing countries, both professionally and privately. Residence in India for one year. Participant in missions to Chile, India, Irian Jaya (West Papua), and Turkey.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Economics is not a hard science. Although I would pay attention to him on the economic impact of climate change, or the economics of fighting climate change, I don't see why his view of climate science would be any better than anyone else with a bachelor's degree in some kind of science.
Why would one listen to an economist with only a BS in physics on questions of climatology and science? Especially when his paper lacked proper sourcing? |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
http://sites.google.com/site/carlineconomics/
"The EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy" Prefer her version do you? Mind you I don't blame you; http://www.facebook.com/people/Adora-Andy/1625538144
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
So then judging from his CV, Carlin is one of those academics you claim is making all that money off of climate research?
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics. He is, by profession and graduate training, a lawyer. He is not a scientist, but he is clearly not uninformed about science. He has published policy papers regarding his work as a lawyer with EPA.
Look at the paper; actually read the report that you claim to be so important. Carlin makes it clear that he was not "asked to write a [i.e. this] report" by the EPA. The EPA had a draft of a report and sought feedback. As Carlin says in the intro to his paper, he wrote the entire thing in 5-6 days and he acknowledged that his report was unlikely to be error-free. Carlin's bibliography contains three entries from the astrologer Theodor Landscheidt. One entry is simply Landscheidt's name and the year 2000. The second item lists a paper by Landscheit from 2001, but gives no publication information. The third item is a 2003 web document by Landscheit. As you cruise through his bibliography you will find references to unrefereed websites, interspersed with more credible research papers. So the question is this: if you haven't read Carlin's paper and the sources your cite clearly haven't either why do you think it is important? John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Are you a scientist?
I absolutely love the way people let their agenda set who is or is not qualified to listen to. Anyone agreed with has no agenda and is brilliant. Really. It is sad Look at the economic impact of cap and trade to tell me it is good any time let alone during a recession? Turns out much of what is written is hysteria. But look at some of the posts here, hysteria rules the lives of some people. If you want everyone to pay an extra 5% then you first need EVERYONE to pay for that to work. Till then it does not work. Then you want another 5% for the environment, another 5% for some other hippie cause and before we know it we are at 75%! How about 30% across the board? That is why they are supposed to be limited in what can be taxed for.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Danny, are you serious?
I have made it very clear what me credentials are: I am not a climate scientist and that is why I don't pretend to be able to evaluate the content of peer-reviewed scientific papers. I am, however, well trained in some sorts of analysis, and I use those skills to assess what I can. For most of these discussions, what I am able to do is read the materials at the posted links--which I do. In the cases above, my comments are restricted to what I am able to critique. Mostly, the documents cited do not make the claims that are attributed to them. The Carlin document is a fine example. Tommy says that the EPA asked him to write it: it is clear from the document itself that that is not the case. Tommy goes on to say that he knows what the EPA expected Carlin to write; how he could know that is beyond me. Carlin criticizes scientific conclusions: much of the evidence he provides is from non peer-reviewed websites. You don't need to be a scientist to evaluate that. Of course, I only read part of Carlin's report and no one should mistake my views for anything other than what they are: a social scientist's impressions of a lawyer's hastily drafted response to a scientific position paper. I hope that no one thinks that I have claimed to be a climate scientist, or to be qualified to adjudicate the complex scientific arguments at stake. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
No John you automatically attack the man on his credentials, just like everyone you disagree with. All who agree with you are virtuous and pure and brilliant and all others are uninformed dolts. Regardlesss of the evidence. It shows time and again. I seriously think it is a religion with you.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
No Danny, I don't. I mention that he is not a climate scientist because it is relevant. Just as I mention that I am not a climate scientist: because it is relevant.
The big thing is that I actually read the material I comment on. I check references. My guess is that you don't even have the slightest idea where I stand on these issues, in spite of my continual statements. Good try though. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
“the sources your cite” ? The teacher evidently can not write but I am wondering if he can read or is it me? When the teacher says the sources your cite have not read Carlins report is he referring to this that I cited?: http://sites.google.com/site/carlineconomics/
In any event if the teacher goes there it says “A new website in a more dynamic blog format can be found here.” Click it and it will take you to the website that is being used by Alan Carlin as a form of electronic news to present insights based on economics and science on current public policy issues. Editor: Alan Carlin. Mr Carlin has not only read it but wrote it. There the teacher will find the answers questions he is asking even though he may not agree with what Mr Carlin. The teacher can put his concerns to Mr Carlin himself. Or is it Dr Carlin. For example: The Politicization of EPA: The Administration’s Radical Endangerment Gamble Alan Carlin |December 8, 2009 On Monday EPA announced its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. One can infer from the timing of the announcement that the Administration may have taken this action at this time in order to bring something to the table at the Copenhagen COP15 meeting. From a scientific viewpoint it was an odd time to do so given that the very recent Climategate disclosures would presumably have taken some time to digest and analyze for their possible effects on vital conclusions. So the timing may have been based more on the political rather than the scientific factors involved. But from a larger viewpoint, the Obama who was going to find a way to resolve partisan bickering in Washington has now embarked on a major escalation of the conflict by using the power he holds over Executive Branch agencies to fight its enemies in Congress over the issue of global warming. Although EPA has always been organizationally an arm of the Administration in power, it has until this Administration been able to largely maintain the appearance if not the reality of being science based. That is now much harder to maintain. Originally the rumor was that the purpose of the endangerment finding would be to pressure Congress into approving a cap and trade bill. But by now it appears fairly clear that the Administration will not be able to gather the needed votes in the Senate to pass the bill at least this year and probably even next year either with or without an endangerment finding. So there would seem to be little reason to push the endangerment finding now unless they intended to attempt to use it as the basis for negotiating at COP15. Some Major Political Risks This EPA endangerment approach carries some major risks for the Administration, however. The first risk is that EPA’s apparently politically motivated endangerment finding may be overturned in the now inevitable court reviews. The second risk is that when implementing greenhouse gas regulations should be announced and certainly when they should ever be implemented the full responsibility will obviously fall onto the Administration rather than being shared between the Administration and Congress, which is what would occur if Congress ever adopted a cap and trade bill. So if many constituents end up being unhappy with the resulting regulations and particularly the greatly increased energy costs and decreased employment that will result it will be obvious who was responsible. And there may well be some unhappy constituents. A third risk is that they will not be able to contain EPA’s actions since the law clearly specifies that much smaller sources are subject to regulation than they now contemplate, and legal action may force EPA to regulate smaller sources whether it wants to or not. A fourth risk is that the added uncertainties created by the finding and the added costs in terms of higher energy prices and reduced employment will further weaken the Administration’s claims to be primarily interested in combatting the recession, the issue currently most on the mind of voters. Some Additional Risks from the International Negotiations Needed to Insure a Worldwide Effort But there are other risks as well. Suppose the COP15 meeting is unable to reach any agreement that the Administration can sell domestically? Or suppose that there is agreement on a new climate protocol and it comes into force but only a few countries actually live up to what they have agreed to, as has been the case for the Kyoto Protocol, so that what little effect reductions in CO2 may have on global temperatures is lost in the increased emissions of those countries that do not take promised reductions seriously. Or suppose that the developing world says that they will only support a new treaty if the developed world pays the bill, as they have so far done? Is the Administration willing to support a massive foreign aid bill providing funds to the UN, or one of its agencies such as the World Bank, to disperse as they may decide in the middle of the most serious recession of the postwar era to meet these demands by the developing world? Suppose the Russians will agree to a new treaty only if their credits resulting from the collapse of Soviet era manufacturing are honored in a new protocol, meaning that they would face very limited requirements? So the Administration seems to be gambling not only that Americans will not rebel against the potential EPA restrictions but that it can push through a massive UN-administered foreign aid program. And then there is the problem of how to get any possible new protocol through the Senate, which this time would require 67 votes rather than 60 needed for cap and trade. All this seems to me to be quite a gamble. And just to make things worse from the Administration’s viewpoint, it is not only now clear that key parts of the global warmists’/UN science is scientifically incorrect (see my March Comments and my more recent blog post); it is now also clear how it is that their science came to be the way it is since we now have some of the actual programs used to bring this about as well as some of the Email and programming comments of some of those working to bring this about. Even Mother Nature is not cooperating with very cold, wintry weather sweeping the United States this week. Finally, public support for the global warming/UN science and greenhouse gas regulation is dropping rapidly. So is it wise for the Administration to take all these risks from a political viewpoint? Or is the outcome going to be similar to the recent one in Australia, where last week Parliament turned down a cap a trade bill for the second time. Unless the Administration is driven solely by a radical environmental agenda come what may, the only rational conclusion is that they think they can somehow overcome all these major risks. The loss of even one of these sub-gambles may doom the lot. So perhaps they are driven primarily by environmental dogma rather than political calculation? Maybe they actually still believe that they are saving the world despite the demonstrably bad science they have endorsed in order to support this view? The Skeptics Are Also Unlikely to Be Willing to Compromise On the other side of the issue, the skeptics are unlikely to be willing to compromise given the recent confirmation of their suspicions concerning how the warmists’ science was derived. From their viewpoint there appear to be only a limited number of options: 1.Assume that at least one of the lawsuits that may emerge will be upheld by the courts. 2.Look for a must-pass bill to attach a rider that prohibits funds being used to implement greenhouse gas controls under the Clean Air Act. 3.Use the Congressional Review Act to overrule the endangerment finding. Whichever of these options the skeptics may pursue, the outcome will be the still further politicization of EPA. This may have much longer lasting effects than the current fight over global warming control and could lead to the end of EPA as a primarily science-based Agency. 19 Responses to “The Politicization of EPA: The Administration’s Radical Endangerment Gamble” ” Fred H. Haynie says: December 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm This process has been going on for years, well before I retired over eighteen years ago. The agency is filled with political appointees who wish to please the their appointer. Career administrators wish to please these appointees. Those doing the research are under pressure to please their bosses. The result is the development of another political agency doing subjective rather than objective research. The IPCC was founded as a political agency to do subjective research (prove AGW). This reported finding marks the death of objective research at EPA and calls into question the agencies ability to regulate pollutants that are actually an endangerment. bobby b says: December 10, 2009 at 2:39 am “This reported finding marks the death of objective research at EPA and calls into question the agencies ability to regulate pollutants that are actually an endangerment.” – - – - – More accurately, it marks the second serious attempt at suicide by the agency, once again by Browner’s hand. Sadly, I suspect that help will once again arrive before the patient expires. Back in the eighties, the EPA, led by (gasp!) Carol Browner, made the same sort of unsupported, ideology-driven endangerment finding as to cigarette smoke. Browner announced that 3000 people died every year from exposure to second-hand smoke. She was never able to provide any evidence to support this claim. The Fed court – through the hand of U. S. District Court Judge William Osteen – ruled that the agency had no support for the endangerment finding, and revoked it. Judge Osteen’s analysis showed that this agency had reached its conclusion prior to any research, then adjusted standard scientific practices to validate its faulty conclusions. Sound familiar? Carol Browner’s appointers love her, as she does the idiotic, unsupported, ideologically-driven, scientifically-unsound things that they really want to do but don’t dare because they’re too outlandish. Now watch as we end up with a cap-and-trade bill after all. This move will provide cover for enough switched votes to get it in. (”But if we didn’t pass this, the EPA was going to start shutting my state’s industry down!”) jae says: December 10, 2009 at 10:52 pm A very thoughtful and IMHO correct analysis of the situation, as usual! Thank you for your service to your country! Jumbo says: December 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm Its really up to the political party in power as to whether it wants to follow good science or not. There is a tremendous amount of weak science that is spewed out of universities. And some Congresspersons respond to the fears or claims of constituents, no matter how ill-founded. Many people call themselves activists. This suggests they favor a position, just to campaign for something, with little concern as to whether their cause is sensible. The problems are not just evident within EPA. They are endemic throughout academia. Universities love to grab climate dollars and build their bureaucracies. Journalists often have very little understanding or insight into issues and many will be biased to promote fears. A positive countervailing force is the Web. The Web allows critics to contribute their viewpoints. Unfortunately, Mr. Carlin, a fair amount of past EPA “science” regarding chemicals has long been oversimplified, uncertain, or poor. Its good not to be too dismayed by the C02 endangerment finding. Its nonsense, but life goes on and in due course better sense will prevail. Jumbo says: December 12, 2009 at 10:02 pm Dr. Carlin, to add one additonal thought. Thanks for not being an eco-communist watermelon. Its nice there are some honest folks left in government service. It takes a lot of guts to stand up to the Tidal Wave of liars and dopes. Artimus says: December 16, 2009 at 11:08 am Alan, Thank you for a well-considered report on the status at EPA. As you’ve pointed out the “finding’s” foundation rests on IPCC which draws heavily on CRU and affiliated studies that appear to have been doctored. A good legal team will be able to demonstrate the shaky foundation the finding rests upon and argue it is far from the proof needed for costly regulation. I would not be surprised in light of the fast moving Climategate revelations, to see all three of your skeptic options undertaken. It is also likely that as the taint of political scandal grows around CRU and the AGW premise, politicians and prudent agencies will want to distance themselves from the fallout. There could be no greater PR disaster than being saddled with enforcing a regulation widely viewed as corrupt. Thank you for your service to your country sir. Steve Flint says: December 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm Thank you Mr Carlin, huge respect for you. Jumbo says: December 26, 2009 at 12:56 pm It may be useful to draw a distinction between the hypothesis of catastrophic global warming owing to CO2 from the hypothesis that the earth’s ozone layer would be eroded away by chloro-fluro-carbons (CFCs). The CFC story was more amenable to political use for the simple reason that another chemical could be adopted to replace CFCs. This may have cost some moola, but would also not have been hugely expensive either. Once CFCs are banned, no manufacturer has an economic reason to defend them any more. Thus, it was politically easy to take out CFCs and then spread this internationally via the UN and the Montreal Protocol. In political terms, its a conveniently tidy narrative. One practical problem for those who try to profit from attacking combustion of hydrocarbons yielding CO2 is that electricity is useful and society cannot readily swap it for something else, as with CFCs. Changing the global energy market is enormously costly. This is tempting for chaps like Gore looking to make money for themselves and friends by attacking energy suppliers by claiming they are going to destroy the earth. But since the earth is NOT going to heat up owing to CO2 levels, the inconvenient truth is the entire plan of attack is ultimately doomed, in political terms. In the long run, claiming CO2 drives global warming has to be revealed to be absurd. Its just a matter of when this will be revealed, not if it will be revealed. For the farce of CO2 driven Global Warming to have gotten as far as it did must be testimony to: – abundant funding giving researchers incentive to find something notable lest their efforts be proven to be unimportant – disparagement of normal skepticism – using corruption of peer review to exclude balanced views – the intrinsic weakness of some human beings, even well educated ones like climate scientists, to distort science so as to serve an agenda of their political favorites and to win personal gains – absolute power corrupts absolutely. Some climate scientists thought they could get away witth twisting data and it would never become known. However, the point of this post is that their success was ultimately impossible and their scams would ultimately have to come out. This explains the efforts to “rebrand” the cause. It moved from catastrophic warming to merely the unproveable meaningless idea of “climate change.” And now some are trying to re-invent it further into energy self-sufficiency, toward which the public is reasonably more sympathetic. Many environmental issues have often rested on political control of the media or biased organizations, like UNEP. In the case of global warming, what has been new in its startling scope, is that the cooking of science enabled control to extend and infect the National Academy of Sciences and leading scientific journals, leading many educated people to assume there was something genuine underlying the Global Warming, science is over, allegations. rabidfox says: December 29, 2009 at 2:44 pm Mr Carlin, thank you for you post on this subject. I don’t believe that the scams are running this EPA effort because, as Jumbo above points out, te scam will eventually be found out and a huge backlash will insue — unless the Governmental structure has changed so much that the backlash won’t matter. The watermelon analogy has a ‘red’ center – and this is the Marxists best chance to take over – through Governmental regulatioin, control of our industries and commerce. For some reason, Congress has ceded its legislative duties to Administrative agencies. But they could fight back by eliminating the EPA, which has clearly outlived its usefulness. DAMARIS says: January 2, 2010 at 9:07 pm I’ve been looking all over for this! Thanks. Franklin Stephens says: January 14, 2010 at 12:52 am I wish I would have found your site a long time ago. I found you on Google. Thanks for the great post! William L. says: January 18, 2010 at 5:55 pm I glad reading your article. Thank you so much for provide nice information. Robert says: February 17, 2010 at 1:33 pm I have been looking all over for this! Finally I found your posting on Google. Thx Hydrolyze Waffeleisen says: February 19, 2010 at 6:56 pm Thanks for the infos! Your post actually helped me. Hydrolyze says: February 27, 2010 at 2:10 pm Thank you for the useful thoughts! Still another good article, which is exactly why we come back to all your webpage often!! JONNIE startling insight - StartTags.com says: March 4, 2010 at 11:14 am [...] Elwood Archive Further Insight into the Future Says: … Mail (will not be published) (required) …Carlin Economics and Science The Politicization of EPA: The …Journalists often have very little understanding or insight into issues and many will be biased to [...] car insurance says: March 7, 2010 at 7:23 pm What’s the difference between today’s global-warming models and medieval astrology? Answer: We know which astrological models were correct. That’s the conclusion of scientist Kanya Kusano in a January report published by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, an Osaka-based professional scientific association. The paper, recently translated into English by British technology news Web site the Register, argues that medieval astrologers confirmed their theories by testing their predictions against celestial events that actually unfolded. Similarly, today’s climate science is so complex that only time — and a lot more observation — will tell whether what scientists think they know is really correct. Until then, the alarmist findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are “an unprovable hypothesis,” Mr. Kusano argues. Two of his colleagues on the five-member panel agree. rogerj7 says: March 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm Good day people, I just signed up on this amazing community forum and wished to say hello there! Have a memorable day! Candace Caples says: March 22, 2010 at 10:05 am Hello,I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts. John?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
And while we're at it:
May 2010 was warmest on record - US govt data Quote:
(Reuters) - Last month was the warmest May on record, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said on Tuesday. Perhaps someone can check the references for me; I copied and pasted without doing a background check. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
There is an interesting page there that talks about the different data sets the two sides of the debate are using and that it says is part of problem as the data sets contradict one another. In other words a valid argument can be presented either way depending which data set is chosen. Its all very tricky.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
A quick check of the Reuters story shows that most of the Celsius temperatures are are not equivalent to the Fahrenheit temperatures given. Good proofreaders are getting harder and harder to find.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Big Slick (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24~25~26..30~31~32 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.23 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |