EPA Suppresses Report Disproving Global Warming
This is outrageous. I can’t believe that, with the house passing the Climate Change Bill on Friday, which will seek to curb CO2 emissions, it has just come out that the EPA crushed a dissenting report on the supposed dangers of “Global Warming.” The report, titled Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act (PDF), contains a full 98 double-spaced, 12-point-font pages minus 13 blank pages of scathing evidence disproving Global Warming. As we can clearly see from this selection of internal e-mails exchanged on the matter, the EPA suppressed this report, which could have extended debate on the Climate Change Bill, and by extension, inaction on Climate Change, just a little bit longer.
From the e-mails we can see the EPA had concerns about the report’s references, which one of the author’s, Alan Carlin, attempted to mitigate:
The authorship is clearly indicated on the last page. Actually, much of the non-observable material (ie. statements that do not involve interpretation of existing data) is actually in peer-reviewed literature somewhere and I have tried to reference everything.
If the fascist overlords at the EPA had only bothered to actually look at the report, they would have found references to the illustrious Friends of Science (FoS), who, thanks to massive funding from our paternal benefactors in the oil industry, is able to provide completely unbiased reporting on how wrong wrong wrong scientists are about Global Warming, especially about any attempt to get people to stop consuming so much oil. Compare this to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who must serve everyone in the world, making them far more biased in their findings. FoS only has to answer to one organization, IPCC has to answer to everyone; if we count the oil industry as one person, as American Corporate law does, then the IPCC is 6.9 Billion times as biased as the FoS.
Additionally, the report references the blog What’s Up With That?, which argues that this is all because of fluctuations in the Sun, and also counts as a peer-reviewed journal, since it is a journaling medium and the commenters are peers because they have the same lack of credentials as the blog’s author. Even more additionally, the author’s reference Theodore Landscheidt, who’s research has attributed the recent warming trend to solar cycles, and whose breakthrough work in the field of Astrology determined that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were also the result of a “fractal pattern in the Sun’s dynamics.” How many astrologers does the IPCC reference? Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. That’s because they are fascists just like Hitler, who, unlike Hitler, don’t consult astrologers, palm and tea leaf readers in making their predictions. Buncha Jerks.
But let’s just deal with facts by themselves, which is the best evidence for why Global Warming is a sham. As we can see in the below graphic, which the report references with an APA citation that reads: “Source?”1 and is referenced in numerous articles all over the Interwebs (See here, here, and here.), we can see a clear cooling trend over the last decade:
 Global Cooling Graph |
While many websites refer to this data as “a decade,”2 this report exhibits a sophisticated level of scientific scrupulosity by referring to the dataset as “the 2000s,” which, as everyone knows, does not include the year 2000 itself, because we start counting at the number 1, not 0, and does not include the year 2001 just because. Meanwhile, the enviro-psychos try to swamp ordinary Americans with their cherry-picked data, just like how they cherry-picked the data to include the last 150 years of temperature measurements to show a warming trend. You can clearly see just how the enviro-fanatics are trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by overloading them with data in the below graph:
 Warming Trend Based on Cherry-Picked Data |
I’ve highlighted the selection of data showing the 2002 to 2008 measurements, which clearly shows a cooling trend. 2000 and 2001 are highlighted blue. Academics and bookworm losers who want us to include those two years are trying to manipulate the data to show a warming trend because they’re so dishonest and stuff:
 Global Warming Detail |
But you know what? Our data comes from the article Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Volume 37, No.3 publication of Physics & Society, July 2008, a peer-reviewed journal. Got that? All you science-focused, enviro-fascists can suck it. Although Alan Carlin wasn’t able to find the peer-reviewed journal sources, I was, and the journal even mentions just how peer-reviewed this article is in bright red text just above its title3:
This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.
Isn’t that just like the oppressive elitist Academic regime to write something so hurtful? Academia likes to pick on people who are different. That kid who used to beat you up on the playground and kick sand in your face at the beach? He grew up to be a climate scientist. Are we going to let these eggheads dictate American public policy? Or are we going to stand up to them, do what’s right, and base public policy on emotive appeals, logical fallacies, and a complete lack of empirical evidence?
1 See page 53 of the PDF.
2 Some of you may wonder why a decade of global cooling evidence only includes 6.5 years of data. That’s just because some of you don’t understand basic math and the concept of rounding. People who use this graph are applying the technique of rounding to the number of years of data so that it simplifies to the nearest whole number power of ten, and thus, 6.5 years becomes 10 years so that the average American, who doesn’t understand the immense complexity of decimal places one’s places
3 In all fairness, the final version of the publication had much less damning language; although, it said essentially the same thing.
Note: For a legitimate and more mature debunking of this absolute joke of a report, please see RealClimate’s article Bubkes.
Obama claimed that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase… claiming instead that “It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”
Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ timeless wisdom:
“The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.
…Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”
And after the way the rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.
Comment by Reaganite Republican — June 29, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Reaganite Republican — you fail to account for the fact that a great deal — possibly even a majority — of business is B2B … Business to business. If a business never interfaces with customers directly, how much of those taxes are really passed on to the customer?
Comment by ClintJCL — June 29, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
I’d argue that quite a bit of taxes are passed on to the consumer. Eventually, somewhere along the supply line, there is a final product or service that is sold to a consumer. So business A passes increased cost due to taxes on to business B, who passes those plus their own down to business B, etc. till there’s a consumer. Otherwise, we’d have a perpetual motion money machine. The laws of thermodynamics apply even in economy.
It may not be obvious, but let’s say Web hosting company A charges company B which is maintaining and therefore charging for, an internal website for company C which the public never sees. Company C makes a product though. You can be sure costs are being passed on from A to B to C, and being incorporated in the cost of the product sold from company C. And if the final consumer of product C winds up being the federal government, guess who ponies up? Yup, the taxpayer.
Comment by chriggy — June 29, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Don’t know how the comments went from the EPA suppression report to taxation, but what the heck.
If taxes are not passed on to consumers by business (including B2B), how do you explain the increase in the cost of gasoline, diesel, heating oil, propane, etc over the last 50 years. When I was in High school in the 60’s, gasoline was 25 cents a gallon. Since then and prior to the speculation of oil futures, nearly all the price increase is from state and federal taxes.
Take a good look at tobacco. In 1965 I could buy a pack of cigarettes for a quarter. As little as 10 years ago they were still less than a buck. But since the increase in taxes and the tobacco settlement, they are now $5 to $7 a pack.
What about beer, wine and liquor? What about the price of cars? Government regulations for safety and fuel mileage are taxes too. That is why the price of a car today is so astronomical.
Now to EPA suppression. I think we take the wrong approach when we try to address all the smoke and mirrors of the AGW crowd. First of all, Climate Change is real. There is no disputing that science. It has been going on since time began.There has been a warming trend until 2001 and since then we are cooling. Those are scientific facts.
Another scientific fact is that carbon emissions are increasing. There is science to back that statement too. But there is NO SCIENCE that proves increases in CO2 caused the increase in temperature prior to 2001.
If you have a copy of that science (not just scientific consensus) you would publish it. It has never been published because it does not exist.
All the AGW crowd can do is to try to assassinate the character of anyone who dares to challenge their theory. They cannot carry on a civil debate of the facts of the science.
How many scientists does it take to prove the debate is not over? More than 30,000 scientists have signed The Petition Project. More than 9,000 of them have PhDs (not that that proves anything about carbon, but it does prove something about the myth of “consensus”).
The petition’s wording is unequivocal:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon
dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments
of the Earth.”
Source: http://www.petitionproject.org
The Petition Project is funded by donations from
individuals and run by volunteers. It receives
no money from industry or companies. Source: http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SkepticsHandbook.pdf
Comment by Lee Richey — June 30, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
The Petition Project is a well-documented joke that has long been discredited. As for the anecdotal evidence that taxes on products are passed along to the consumer, this completely disregards the economics 101 truth that corporations charge the maximum price consumers will pay without any consideration to costs except how to minimize them to maximize profits. Oil prices are set by the market, which is why gas prices didn’t go down despite the oil industry receiving huge tax cuts. They didn’t pass that tax cut onto consumers, they put it into record profits instead.
As for scientific integrity, I have clearly shown that this report has none. It was an obvious sham meant to scam the American public into thinking there was some debate still going on about Anthropogenic Climate Change. When you stop behaving with such appalling dishonesty, you can sit at the adults’ table and be treated with respect.
Comment by ideonexus — June 30, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
If the best you can come up with to refute something is Wickipedia, I suggest you check with your college professor regarding the reliability of using an open source publication as a reference.
Again, if you have a copy of the irrefutable science linking global warming or climate change with an increase in CO2, please publish it or tell me where I can get my hands on a copy of the science. You won’t answer my question because you can’t.
You can’t because there is no irrefutable science that proves this using the well accepted scientific method.
When are you going to get your head out of the sand and realize this is the truth? Hopefully before you go over the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.
You seem to have to resort to name calling and putdowns to prove your point. Is there any particular reason why?
Comment by Lee Richey — July 3, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Please see the G8, Brazil’s Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, France’s Académie des Sciences, Italy’s Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Russia’s Academy of Sciences, the United State’s National Academy of Sciences, United States of America, the Royal Society of Canada, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Science Council of Japan, the Academy of Science of South Africa, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, the Royal Society, United Kingdom, Malaysia’s Academy of Sciences, New Zealands, Academy Council of the Royal Society, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Sciences, the Woods Hole Research Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the National Research Council, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, the American Association of State Climatologists, the US Geological Survey (USGS), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), the World Meteorological Organization, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society, the Pew Center on Climate Change, and 928 peer reviewed scientific journal papers.
Your signature list is pretty cute though and does include the fictional lawyer Perry Mason. Maybe you should get Scooby Doo to reveal that the Global Warming Monster is really just Al Gore in a costume trying to get rich off of alternative energies.
As for the name-calling. You guys are the ones who came up with the word “Dittoheads” to describe yourselves. Yes, I take advantage of the fact that it sounds like name calling when someone who isn’t one says it, like “Teabagger,” but that’s a problem you should take up with your PR experts.
Comment by ideonexus — July 5, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
@ideonexus:
You still didn’t list any links because they’ve all been refuted by more recent and far more credible research. And here we have the completely non-fictional MIT professor Richard Lindzen publishing a report that says that CO2-based Global Warming does not exist: http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
Imagine that.
Nice try…your list of organizations is pretty cute though. Unfortunately the truth wasn’t one of them.
Comment by Mike B. — August 22, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
SPPI isn’t a peer-reviewed journal. You might as well be referencing Rush Limbaugh.
Comment by ideonexus — August 23, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Mike B.
I started to play your game and track down the links to every one of the above scientific organization’s statements on AGW, but found someone has already done the work for me:
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
Comment by ideonexus — August 24, 2009 @ 8:10 pm