Global Warmers Show Me the (Taxpayer) $$$
Share this Article
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
RedditAuthor:
Harrison
Tags:
Al Gore Al McGartland Alan Carlin Bush cap and trade carbon dioxide climate change CO2 Democrats epa global warming hypocrites kool aid Liberals Media Bias mr. science Obama Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum petm polar bears politicizing science taxes
Those poor, innocent polar bears.
God forbid we should learn our planet’s history. There’s no money to be made in that. Social programs need to be paid for, lifestyles need to be controlled (unless you can afford carbon offset credits), and the moral high ground still has to be held. Also, Al Gore wants another award (he needs them to pay for his electricity bills). Reality smacked Liberals in the face recently with yet another study showing we don’t really know what causes the earth’s temperature to change:
A runaway spurt of global warming 55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse but how this happened remains worryingly unclear, scientists said on Monday.
Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, estimates the planet’s surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years.
What is most interesting is the scientists studying this effect tried to see what role CO2 played in it. Not surprisingly for anybody who paid attention to Mr. Wizard’s use of the Scientific Method when they were a kid, CO2 played little role at all:
They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM’s main phase to reach 1,700 parts per million (ppm), attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today.
But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3.5 C (1.8-6.3 F) of PETM’s warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right, the team found.
There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher.
Hmm… pretty interesting stuff if you buy into the whole “science” thing:
“Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations,” warns Zeebe’s team.
SUVs sold very well 450,000 years ago.
Imagine that… humans somehow lack complete knowledge and might not be able to answer every question (we did design the Pinto after all)! That is a real shocker, isn’t it? Well, these minor inconveniences shouldn’t stop a Liberal from drawing a link between “global warming” and tax dollars, should it?
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
What I find most interesting is that Liberals seem damned convinced of the moral quest to “find the truth” such as probing the G.W. Bush administration’s use of “torture” and to follow that wherever it might lead but when it comes to “global warming” do they have the same attitude?
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message 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.”
Not only that but it seems as though Mr. McGartland himself was “just following orders” as the Germans used to say:
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”
What is even more ironic is that the EPA administrator said earlier this year:
“I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.”
It tastes so good and is low calorie because it is of little substance.
Further irony is enjoyed by years of Liberals saying the G.W. Bush administration was politicizing science. Even our dear leader, President Obama, said it:
Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over… To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life.”
So now that the Democrats are running the show we have terrorists who deserve our sympathy, successful people who hire Americans deserve our scorn, our enemies deserve our outstretched hand, scientists get a gag, and Americans who protest high taxes are called extremists.
This silencing isn’t just limited to the government, either. The author of the story quoted in the beginning, despite clearly laying out the facts that we don’t know what causes “global warming” has to put in their own two cents:
Man-made global warming, driven mainly by the burning of oil, gas and coal, has amounted to around 0.8 C (1.12 F) over the past century.
One social program the Democrats won’t fund is a class on how to read between the lines because if that happened people might actually learn something.
Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.
6:53 AM
is al gore even still relevant? he was a failure at NYU, his lead scientist in his propganda was exposed, and he couldn’t even grow a good beard.
7:00 AM
You’ll never make successful small talk at Hollywood cocktail parties with those kinds of ideas.
8:02 AM
Whenever you see dissenters being silenced, you know you are getting closer to the truth.
.-= burro´s last blog ..Want safety from the Democrats? Join Al Qaeda =-.
7:15 PM
Come on Harrison, you should know by now that truth only matters if it fits the Liberal Agenda.
.-= dickster1961´s last blog ..HOA From Hell #6 =-.
7:19 PM
You’re right I’m the one with the problem.
11:03 PM
Science doesn’t care about politics, and neither do most scientists. You should read up on the work of people like Lonnie Thompson, who was a Reagan supporter, and who spent years measuring ice core samples before reaching any conclusions about global warming.
Scientific theories can only be proved or disproved by scientific experiments. It doesn’t matter how many scientist support them, and it doesn’t matter what political beliefs are held by people who subscribe to or deny a particular scientific theory. Neither you nor I are qualified to say why the ice caps are melting at a very alarming rate. But there is no dispute that they are melting, and that CO2 concentrations have been heading upward, and temperatures are also headed upward, and there also seems to be a pretty good theory out there to explain why increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to increased temperatures.
I would not be so quick to impugn the motives of the scientists who have done the research necessary to reach their conclusions. The fact that they don’t know everything doesn’t mean that they have ulterior motives, and it doesn’t mean that their basic conclusions are wrong. It is simply not fair to attack science by attacking liberals. If you want to attack the science, you have to do an experiment to prove that that the theory is wrong.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..It’s Up to Congress to Legislate. =-.
7:53 AM
Science is like anything else… put in the wrong data get the wrong data out. Global warming science mainly uses computer models to show “results.” The problem is, garbage in, garbage out… the modeling data is flawed.
Why do you think the EPA suppressed a report skeptical of global warming or why won’t Al Gore debate anybody on the matter?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml
11:35 AM
Well I guess you need to ask yourself why, if Al Gore is asked to speak to Congress, is considered the “leading spokesperson” for “global warming” why he is in that position if you seem to feel that he is not good enough to debate somebody about the very topic he has spent 15-20 years working on.
And if that’s the case regarding Gore not being a scientist and thus not being capable of holding a debate then why should he have any role in making policy? If that is the case then why are many people at the UN who are not scientists in charge of writing policy for “global warming.”
Just because the guy at the EPA was not a scientist does that mean his concerns are not valid? Cap and Trade is going to be dealt with on the basis of its economic affects. Why was the report suppressed?
According to the story I posted from CBS:
“E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.”
And there are tons of scientists who disagree that “global warming” is caused by man. Why do you think Kyoto never went into affect? Why did the U.S. Senate not approve it under Clinton?
The entire thing is a shell game to raise government revenues and anybody who gets in the way of that will be quashed.
2:24 PM
Al Gore is certainly well-informed enough to speak about global warming. When he does that, all he does is to explain what actual scientists have discovered, and to urge that the rest of us take action based on those findings. I never said he should not be speaking on the topic. What I said was that there is no point in having him participate in a debate about whether human activity is causing climate change. Scientific questions CANNOT be settled by debate. They cannot be settled by a vote of scientists either. It doesn’t matter how many scientists agree with a theory or not. When Copernicus came up with the theory that the earth travels around the sun, the majority of scientists probably still believed that the sun goes around the earth. So I don’t care if only one scientist accepts the theory of man-made global warming or whether 99% of scientists accept it. All that matters is whether the theory is true or not. And that cannot be settled by debate. It can only be settled by the process of scientific experiment. Or we can wait around and see whether the things that science predicts actually come true or not. So far, a lot of the predictions made by the leading proponents of the theory of man-made global warming, have already come true.
You cannot possibly believe that the entire scientific community is corrupted by the mighty power of environmental lobbyists, especially when there is vastly more money and power on the other side of the issue. So if there is scientific evidence to show that something besides our raging CO2 emissions are causing global warming, there is no reason why articles should not appear in reputable scientific journals to show that. But you can’t find anything in any scientific journal providing any real evidence for any alternative theory. Therefore, case closed, unless and until somebody disproves the theory in a scientific way.
So what if Carlin was told not to work on climate change. I think that is the prerogative of his employer. The facts are that he is not a scientist, his report was not suppressed, and his report doesn’t consist of any real research or any science. Why should he be working on something he is not qualified to work on? If he wants to speak up, he is certainly free to do so, and I hear that he has not been shy about going on all the talk shows. But nobody can claim that this guy has done any real science.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..It’s Up to Congress to Legislate. =-.
9:27 AM
First, Alan Carlin is not a scientist. He is an economist. Second, his report was not “suppressed” but is publicly available for anyone to read. Third, the report, from what I have read about it, mostly consists of a bunch of recycled stuff from websites skeptical of the theory that human actions are causing climate change. It is fine for people to raise whatever questions they want to raise about the science, but my point is that if you want to refute a scientific theory, you have to do some science yourself. Carlin did not do that.
And by the way, Al Gore is not a scientist either. He is certainly well-informed on the scientific issues, and he has acted as a popularizer of science, but he hasn’t done the work on this issue either. What would be the point of debating him? It wouldn’t settle anything. If you want to “debate” the issue of man-made global warming, what you have to do is conduct some experiments that would support an alternative theory, and get your results published in a reputable scientific journal. You would have no trouble finding funding for such research, as the oil companies and coal companies have been happy to spend millions trying to come up with actual scientific research to try to show that burning fossil fuels is not affecting the climate. Unfortunately for them, they still haven’t come up with much yet.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..It’s Up to Congress to Legislate. =-.
2:56 PM
So Al Gore is well informed enough to lecture world leaders, help them craft policy, make a movie, testify in front of the U.S. Senate but not debate somebody? Sounds like a cop out to me.
Data shows that the climate fluctuates on earth and has ever since the earth has been around. The graph I used shows this going back hundreds of thousands of years. Many things affect the climate from how close the earth is to the sun to solar activity to the oceans, etc. Humans can’t know everything and if you skew or ignore one or more data points your results will be useless. Many of the people who are getting on the “global warming” bandwagon are doing so for political reasons. Either they don’t like rich people, think we should all drive toy cars, or think we should give our money to poor people in 3rd World countries and will thus use any excuse they can think of in order to make this happen. There is a lot of money at stake here. Whenever there is money at stake there is bias.
So what if Carlin was told not to work on climate change? This is from the same president who said he was not going to “politicize” science. Sounds like he’s going back on his word to me.
You point to the old “big oil” argument. Big oil might have their backers but there are many more people holding the opposite ideas and they are very vocal.
Besides if you look into the role of H2O and “global warming” you’ll see that CO2 does a very poor job of holding or trapping heat and water is the one that causes most of the “problems” but Liberals can’t exactly tax water, can they?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It’s all a game to get money out of people’s hands to fund social systems and you have people like the guy at NASA who, in the 70s, was just as into the global cooling scam as he now is into the global warming swindle.
4:21 PM
Let me try to explain this to you one more time. What I said was that neither Al Gore nor you nor I nor anybody else, can resolve the question of whether CO2 emissions cause global warming by debating about it. The only way you can resolve that scientific question is by scientific methods. It is a very different process from the process of debate. If you want to answer that question, you need to gather some data, and do some experiments, or you at least need to understand what the scientists are saying who have gathered the data and done the experiments. If there are no peer-reviewed articles in any scientific journals questioning the general theory, it’s not because there is some kind of vast conspiracy to keep reputable science out of the journals in order to advance some political agenda. It’s because there are no reputable scientific studies questioning this theory. You acknowledge that big oil has plenty of backers, and you are aware that they have spent millions trying to prove that CO2 emissions are not causing climate change, but so far they have failed.
And by the way, why can’t the government tax water if it wants to? The DWP sends me a bill every other month that measures every drop that I use. Last time I checked it had some taxes on it too.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..It’s Up to Congress to Legislate. =-.
4:32 PM
I understand what you are saying but I think you fail to see that global warmers view the issue as a religion and do not listen to reason. There is actually plenty of scientific, peer reviewed artices however Democrats are not interested in this because those things stand in the way of them tapping into a huge source of government revenue.
Yes DWP does tax water in a way but it is a charge for getting, cleaning, and distributing water not taxing water vapor emissions… two different things.
I do not think anybody has failed to raise issues questioning global warming. Had they failed Cap and Trade or Kyoto a more than a decade ago would have the force of law.
You say the issue of global warming will not be won in a debate but you are wrong. Obama is having a debate with his own party and with Americans about Cap and Trade. If people honestly thought that all of the worst case scenarios would come true then the debate would have been won. People are very skeptical and when stories come out about opposing scientists or economists having their work suppressed it does not build trust. That is why Al Gore will not allow himself to be challenged.
I can take one set of facts and, depending upon how I frame the question or input the data get two completely different “results.”
7:39 PM
Of course there is a debate about what to do about global warming, and of course there are a lot of ways to rationalize not doing anything. It’s kind of like the debate that Jared Diamond imagined was taking place on Easter Island, when the remaining people probably argued about whether it would be a good idea to chop down the last tree standing.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..It’s Up to Congress to Legislate. =-.
7:46 PM
I read that book but the difference is the people cut the trees down and thus directly caused their own demise. I do not think man plays a role in “global warming” and thus do not see it that way.
Again, looking at the graph posted above:
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/450000-with-green-line.jpg
It is very clear the climate on earth is constantly changing and it wasn’t doing so because of mankind.
Or check this article out:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=333327577562530&secure=1&show=1&rss=1