Quote :

"submit to the authorities"

I didn't say anything about submitting to the authorities.
Believe what you want. Oppose the authorities if they do things wrong.
Just realize that, even if they're wrong, most of world HATES those who suggests CC isn't anthropogenic.
Speaking out about how "climate change has not been proven to be caused by man" is POLITICAL SUICIDE.
That's all I'm saying.
(Pick your battles.)

Quote :

"banning incandescent light bulbs"

Yeah, that's fucking dumb. Wasting energy isn't a crime -- it's just irresponsible. Polluting however, is inescapably criminal.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 8:28 AM. Reason : ]

2/23/2009 8:27:06 AM

And you don't see a problem with telling dissenting opinions to shut up and stop talking because people don't like them?

Also, wasting energy is indirect pollution, so if pollution is criminal, then so is wasting energy.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 8:46 AM. Reason : sadf]

2/23/2009 8:45:26 AM

Quote :

"And you don't see a problem with telling dissenting opinions to shut up and stop talking because people don't like them"

Yes, I do see the clear problem with that.
But I also see the damage that unpopular speech can do, even if it is true.

Quote :

"Also, wasting energy is indirect pollution, so if pollution is criminal, then so is wasting energy."

Perhaps, but that assumes that the energy comes from a polluting source. (A safe assumption, I guess.) But that wouldn't justify banning incandescent light bulbs. Sometimes, incandescent light bulbs are the right ones for the job.

2/23/2009 8:51:56 AM

Quote :

"Okay, really, just curious here; for those who are arguing that AGW is a hoax, what exactly is the objection, here? That the Greenhouse Effect is wrong? I think CO2's response to trapping reflected rays from the Sun have been pretty well-demonstrated: I mean, we have an entire planet (Venus) if you're still skeptical. So, what then? The small concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere? We have plenty of records of different climates from millions of years ago when the CO2 concentration was different. So... are those wrong? Are the ice cores wrong? Or is the objection the order-of-magnitude problem - i.e., the amount of carbon put into the air by human activities must be small compared to the amount already there? But what about the fact that we've been doing this in large scale for the last 150 years, with a rapid acceleration of this process in the last 100?"

Yes, CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect, but its not the major player. No scientist can reproduce earth's atmosphere in a laboratory, there are too many positive and negative feedbacks in nature. None of these climate "models" are even close to accurate and can't even reproduce the past (which is a good control test). So why on God's green Earth should you believe that CO2 is the boogie man? I am all for a greener, cleaner planet but there are about a million other things that can be done to improve the planet over this. Reducing CO2 emissions will close to zero effect on anything. If all countries had complied with the Kyoto Protocol the global temperature would have decreased by less than 1/2 a degree, according to most estimates/studies.

The Earth has always been a changing, dynamic environment. If you want to stop everything and put it in equilibrium then you better figure out a way to stop plate teutonics

2/23/2009 11:58:38 AM

Quote :

"I am all for a greener, cleaner planet but there are about a million other things that can be done to improve the planet over this."

You are correct. They should get more attention.

Quote :

"Reducing CO2 emissions will close to zero effect on anything. If all countries had complied with the Kyoto Protocol the global temperature would have decreased by less than 1/2 a degree, according to most estimates/studies."

That's a huge change.

Quote :

"The Earth has always been a changing, dynamic environment."

That doesn't mean that humans are unable to affect it negatively through their actions.

Quote :

"If you want to stop everything and put it in equilibrium then you better figure out a way to stop plate teutonics"

No one is saying that. They're simply saying that humans shouldn't unduly contribute to either negative effects on the climate in general, or a detrimental disruption of the nature of things.

lol... stopping plate tectonics would fuck all kinds of shit up. That analogy is weak and old.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason : \/ 4 seconds... not bad]

2/23/2009 12:13:49 PM

Quote :

"Yes, CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect, but its not the major player."

Then what is? What is the main driver of retaining reflected solar energy from the Earth's surface? Forget AGW for a moment - according to you, if CO2 is but a minor player in the Greenhouse Effect, what is the major driver?

Quote :

"No scientist can reproduce earth's atmosphere in a laboratory, there are too many positive and negative feedbacks in nature."

This applies to meteorology as well, yet we can come up with at least reasonable short-to-medium term weather models. And clearly everyone agrees that weather is a chaotic system. So why are we throw up our hands here with climate and simply declare the task impossible?

I think you are confusing the problem of trying to make specific predictions of future weather patterns to the general thermodynamic problem of calculating how much heat is retained and where it will go in the earth's thermal system. This is difficult, but clearly not impossible.

Quote :

"None of these climate "models" are even close to accurate and can't even reproduce the past (which is a good control test)."

From what are you drawing this assertion?

Quote :

"If all countries had complied with the Kyoto Protocol the global temperature would have decreased by less than 1/2 a degree, according to most estimates/studies."

This is true, and it's a fair policy argument. However, I think the issue at hand is not reversing AGW - clearly, it's an unreasonable task with our technology. Even completely stabilizing the temperature increase may be too much to ask for. But is it wrong to recognize that there is a problem and consider trying to reduce our impact upon it?

Quote :

"The Earth has always been a changing, dynamic environment. If you want to stop everything and put it in equilibrium then you better figure out a way to stop plate teutonics"

I think you mean "tectonics", unless the Earth's crust is being manipulated by medieval German knights.

But I think you are missing the point, here. You are correct - Earth is a dynamic system, and the goal is not to maintain a static equilibrium. The point really, I think, is not to push the Earth's system so hard through driving factors - like adding a massive amount of things we know to have a thermodynamic effect on Earth's atmosphere - to the point where we shift over the equilibrium point rather unexpectedly.

That is, despite the variations in Earth's climate right now, we generally have a relatively stable range of climates. Push that too hard, and who knows what will happen in a chaotic system like this? It's not just as simple as everything getting uniformly warmer by a degree or two - if that were the case, AGW wouldn't really be much to worry about. It's the chaotic effects - the very ones you describe as making it impossible to make accurate models - which are the ones that give us any reason to worry to begin with.

2/23/2009 12:13:53 PM

Quote :

"Then what is? What is the main driver of retaining reflected solar energy from the Earth's surface? Forget AGW for a moment - according to you, if CO2 is but a minor player in the Greenhouse Effect, what is the major driver?"

Water. H2O. Dihydrogen Monoxide.

Quote :

"You are correct - Earth is a dynamic system, and the goal is not to maintain a static equilibrium. The point really, I think, is not to push the Earth's system so hard through driving factors - like adding a massive amount of things we know to have a thermodynamic effect on Earth's atmosphere - to the point where we shift over the equilibrium point rather unexpectedly."

We have no reason to believe there is such an equilibrium point which we can shift over. And as is pointed out, CO2 is not a major driving force in the atmosphere.

Quote :

"That is, despite the variations in Earth's climate right now, we generally have a relatively stable range of climates. Push that too hard, and who knows what will happen in a chaotic system like this?"

You are misusing the term chaotic. The Earth's climate only appears chaotic to Climate Modelers which have no idea what the rules of the climate are. It is easy to write a model for Newtonean Physics, just punch in the equations. But Climate modelers have no such equations to start with. What they are doing is picking equations out of their heads and tweaking them until they produce results similar to the historical record. But they have no idea what the actual equations are, not even what the variables are. As such, in every instance, models cease to match reality within a matter of years.

2/23/2009 4:00:04 PM

^Water vapor's role as a greenhouse gas is a red herring, since there is really nothing we can do to influence it one way or the other. You might as well focus on how bright the sun is. It's a (relative) constant, carbon dioxide is the variable. And the reality is that we are dramatically boosting that variable, causing higher average temperatures than the planet has seen in thousands of years.

2/23/2009 4:06:44 PM

You are mistaken. Changing land use pattern changes the water vapor of the atmosphere. Also, the sun is not that constant; it changes on a regular cycle, which is why your last sentence is a complete lie: every year has been cooler than the previous since 1998. But we are in a natural regular cycle of cooling.


[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/23/2009 4:14:54 PM

I said that both water vapor and the sun are relative constants. Which they are. Please don't make me have to define "relative", you're better than that.

Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 250 ppm to 385 ppm since the industrial revolution. There is nothing constant about that, and it is directly linked to the global rise in temperatures we've seen in the past 100 years.

Quote :

"which is why your last sentence is a complete lie: every year has been cooler than the previous since 1998."

No, that is a complete lie. Don't bother googling, you're wrong on that one.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 4:24 PM. Reason : 2]

2/23/2009 4:23:29 PM

Right, my bad. I remembered that incorrectly. It was that every year since 1998 has been cooler than 1998, which is even disputed by some.

But dismissing other elements of the atmosphere as out of our control is absurd. The urban heat island effect alone disputes that. If we stopped emitting CO2 entirely and then paved the entire planet in concrete the planet would proceed to warm significantly.

This is not to say your attempt at simplification is unwarranted, just that you should acknowledge it as such. As farmland tends to be warmer than the forest it replaced, and concrete jungles are warmer still, then certainly some of the warming we have experienced up to now has reflected changes in land-use patterns the world over since the industrial revolution.

2/23/2009 6:00:52 PM

Fair enough. I definitely simplified things when calling water vapor and radiant energy from the sun relative constants.

However, water vapor has an atmospheric half-life of less than a day. Carbon Dioxide when released into the atmosphere has a half-life of thousands of years. And the overwhelming majority of water vapor gets in the air through evaporation and precipitation, which is largely out of human control. It's kinda like Aaronburro's claim that wind turbines were distrupting the air currents and causing catastrophic weather. Unlike our fossil fuel consumption and it's direct effect on carbon dioxide levels, humans simply do not and cannot have much of an impact on global humidity.

I maintain that focusing on water vapor's greenhouse effect is a red herring, used by skeptics to distract from the obvious impact of other, longer-lasting greenhouse gases that we actually have control over. It's akin to a fat person rationalizing eating a tub of ice cream at the end of the day because it has fewer calories overall than the healthy meals they ate earlier. Ok, not the best analogy, but hopefully you can see my point.



[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 6:34 PM. Reason : 2]

2/23/2009 6:11:37 PM

Quote :

"We have no reason to believe there is such an equilibrium point which we can shift over. And as is pointed out, CO2 is not a major driving force in the atmosphere."

Based upon what? Right now, we observe a relative dynamic equilibrium point with climate; however, it is intuitively obvious that at the limiting condition, one can easily imagine a "breakaway" point where the equilibrium no longer holds. To use an extreme example, consider what would happen if the polar ice caps melted (by whatever means - say a mad scientist simply decided to melt them). The resulting change in albedo would strongly influence other factors, and could possibly lead to radical shifts in climate.

To wit: we've seen radical shifts to new equilbrium in climate before. Look at the Paleolithic era. So why are we to believe it's impossible when the historical record clearly indicates it to be so?

Now, whether human activity could drive it to this point is another matter. But if that's the case, what's the counter-driver being proposed? The few explanations I've heard proposed - like the Iris Effect - have been thoroughly disputed. So what counter-driver is left to prevent a new equilibrium?

Meanwhile, I don't think it's been thoroughly demonstrated that CO2 is a "minor player" - all we've gotten so far is some assertion. I'd actually like to see somebody provide evidence for this claim - especially if the other "major drivers" are relatively constant in time. It would stand to reason were this true that if other players are constant and CO2 is increasing, and the general trend of temperature over the century has increased over the century, absent other compelling explanations, CO2 is a likely culprit.

So, do we have evidence of other phenomena? Is there evidence of other drivers increasing in atmospheric concentration? Do they show the same historical correlation with the rise in CO2 concentrations which directly correlate to widespread industrialization?

In other words, what are the alternative hypotheses? What is the evidence for these hypoetheses?

Quote :

"You are misusing the term chaotic. The Earth's climate only appears chaotic to Climate Modelers which have no idea what the rules of the climate are. It is easy to write a model for Newtonean Physics, just punch in the equations. But Climate modelers have no such equations to start with. What they are doing is picking equations out of their heads and tweaking them until they produce results similar to the historical record. But they have no idea what the actual equations are, not even what the variables are. As such, in every instance, models cease to match reality within a matter of years."

Actually I am not - I am in fact quite aware of the mathematical definition of "chaos."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_system

Quote :

"In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose states evolve with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

I am speaking of chaotic in terms of non-linear dynamics - small perturbations at initial conditions produce wild variations in outcomes in a non-periodic fashion. We can in fact model certain large-scale processes using physically real equations - but they are always going to be approximations due to the second and third-order effects which come into play - such as the rate at which heat is transferred through ocean layers, for instance. (Compare this to say, first-order effects such as albedo, luminescence, etc.) Then we have interplay between any number of cross-terms, etc. I am not a climate scientist, nor do I pretend to be one - but I've encountered enough large-scale systems in my days as a physicist to know what one looks like.

The issue then is not "picking equations and variables at random" - it's understand how particular effects interact in a very large-scale system with many, many different interaction terms. This goes on well beyond climate science - the same process has to be done in nuclear physics, molecular biology, and so forth.

In essence, we don't have a perfectly deterministic understanding of climate. But then, neither do we of nuclear physics or cell biology; we rely on stochastic methods. That doesn't mean that they are automatically invalid, however, or incapable of producing useful insight.

2/23/2009 6:37:38 PM

Quote :

"But I also see the damage that unpopular speech can do, even if it is true."

If some want to be cowardly and avoid unpleasant opinions cast their way..then that's their choice.

I'm sure it was unpopular for those black college kids to stage a sit-in in Greensboro in the early 60s. That was very politically incorrect at the time.

If you believe that CC isn't caused by man, then you owe it to yourself to speak up..grow some nads! The Al Gore gang is "preachin" big time also. But to stay silent just because some others will hate you is cowardly.

Quote :

"humans shouldn't unduly contribute to either negative effects on the climate in general, or a detrimental disruption of the nature of things. "

To what angels will we be giving the authority to decide what is a "unduly negative effect" or a "detrimental disruption" of the nature of things? Who is wise enough to balance the two extremes of runaway polluters and do-gooders who won''t be happy until the human blight is eradicated from pristine nature.

Political leaders? They act in their own power-grabbing self-interests. Scientists? We can't get them to agree on much of anything. So who will pick which pack of scientists we must listen to?









[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2009 8:08:31 PM

Quote :

"To what angels will we be giving the authority to decide what is a "unduly negative effect" or a "detrimental disruption" of the nature of things? Who is wise enough to balance the two extremes of runaway polluters and do-gooders who won''t be happy until the human blight is eradicated from pristine nature. Political leaders? They act in their own power-grabbing self-interests. Scientists? We can't get them to agree on much of anything. So who will pick which pack of scientists we must listen to?"

This is again why Pigovian taxes are a superior approach. Assuming we can all agree that an environmental harm is real - be it AGW or NOx or acid rain - then the proper solution is to internalize the economic externality and let the cost of pollution be reflected in the product; thus it is the market that determines this balance.

Thus, the real question is, "What is the unit cost of pollution?"

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 8:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2009 8:28:40 PM

But there is a minor point. Do we tax carbon at the producer or at the consumer? Taxing the producer would be easier and cheaper, just tax all oil wells, coal mines, and import terminals in proportion to the carbon content. However, we could tax the consumers, all the power plants, gas stations, and natural gas distributors in the land.

If we tax the producers then that leaves room for someone figuring out a way to burn coal without emitting CO2 and therefore avoiding the tax. But, taxing the producers is easier since there are far fewer producers of fossil fuels than there are consumers.

2/23/2009 11:02:45 PM

Quote :

"If we tax the producers then that leaves room for someone figuring out a way to burn coal without emitting CO2 and therefore avoiding the tax. But, taxing the producers is easier since there are far fewer producers of fossil fuels than there are consumers."

I think our goal is social harm mitigation; thus, taxing at the endpoint seems like the most appropriate goal given the incentives problem. Our goal is to minimize the emission of CO2 (or at the very least, let the market reflect the cost of its emission - or whatever pollutant you wish to substitute). If the endpoint user can find a way to consume the product without producing the harmful substance, it would seem appropriate not to tax.

Despite the increased logistical difficulty, it seems logical to apply the tax at the consumable form - at the gas pump, or at the power plant, etc.

Put another way - let's consider coal power plants. The goal should be to create an economic environment where minimization of the pollutant is economically efficient - raising the cost of the raw material is an inefficient means of directing this end (i.e., it simply incentivizes reduced consumption overall). Taxing at the smokestack, per se, incentivizes installing pollution controls, sequestration, gassification (if it's not simply vaporware, but that's another story...) - it overall seems like more desired outcome.

2/23/2009 11:12:08 PM

Quote :

"Do people honestly think that we can take trillions of barrels of oil and entire mountain ranges worth of coal and release them into the air and it will have no effect on world climate? To think so is an obscene premise."

Do people honestly think that the very thing that gives us our heat, the sun, has no effect on our climate? To think so is an obscene premise.

2/23/2009 11:19:06 PM

^^ But it is a tradeoff with wishful thinking. I seriously doubt sequestration would ever work. Even if it did, the CO2 would not stay sequestered. As such, the efficiency gains of taxing at the source should dominate the slim chance that someone conjures up a magic CO2 scrubber.

But, even then, the efficiency gains are not an either or. A law can be passed to allow the government to return to consumers the tax collected from the coal mine in the event the consumer consumes the coal without emitting the CO2.

2/23/2009 11:28:50 PM

Quote :

"But it is a tradeoff with wishful thinking. I seriously doubt sequestration would ever work. Even if it did, the CO2 would not stay sequestered. As such, the efficiency gains of taxing at the source should dominate the slim chance that someone conjures up a magic CO2 scrubber."

Actually, we have CO2 scrubbers available (based on limestone) - how do you think we supply oxygen in space? The issue is industrial-scale scrubbers, which are clearly not economically competitive. I too am skeptical of both gassification and sequestration for the same reasons, although one might note that our sitting president seems to be a fan of them - to the point of hyping these over even mentioning nuclear power (don't get me started...). However, I simply propose those as proposed mitigation strategies - the alternative may simply be shutting down the plant entirely and replacing it with alternative capacity, such as nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, or some combination thereof.

Likewise, the inevitable rate gains foster an immediate incentive for conservation without the mandate by shifting the price equilibrium.

Quote :

"But, even then, the efficiency gains are not an either or. A law can be passed to allow the government to return to consumers the tax collected from the coal mine in the event the consumer consumes the coal without emitting the CO2."

I would still argue that the incentive structure is more direct and transparent if it was taxed at the consumption point. I realize this makes it more difficult to implement, but I think the reasoning behind such a tax should always be clear (and likewise, should be used to offset other taxes); i.e., specific internanalizing of otherwise uncaptured negative externalities. Applying the tax at the production source then re-crediting decouples this motivation in my mind, and may skew the incentive structure - even if a rebate is provided (which in itself is a big "if").

2/23/2009 11:47:18 PM

I was about to respond to this thread, then I realized that I already had. Apparently I drink too much. Who knew?

After that, I was going to move on, until I saw this:

Quote :

"Fixed that for ya, Grumpy."

Fuck off, you damn dirty hippie. I wanted it exactly as I wrote it. You let me be sarcastic, and I'll let you run around and hug trees and kiss terrorists and all that other shit you people do.

2/24/2009 3:09:35 AM

I hope NASA's $273 million Global Warming satellite didn't kill any penguins or polar bears when it crashed into Antarctica.

2/24/2009 10:52:45 AM

I hope it did.

Because polar bears in Antarctica would be an amazing find.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 11:11 AM. Reason : BUT I'LL LEAVE SCIENCE TO THE EXPERTS]

2/24/2009 11:04:37 AM

LOL

A+

2/24/2009 11:10:13 AM

Quote :

"Seattle, WA. March 31, 2008 -- The Polar Bear Conservancy will begin relocation of the first Arctic polar bears to Antarctica on Earth Day, April 22, 2008. The relocation will be the initial step in a planned five-year program to migrate 3,000 polar bears from the Northern Arctic to the southern continent of Antarctica. Scientists say polar bears face near-certain extinction by 2020 as global climate change accelerates melting of their habitat in the Northern Arctic. Antarctica, in contrast, can be a viable home for the bears. Though experiencing melting of its own, the southernmost continent still has sufficient ice coverage to support the polar bear indefinitely in its traditional climate, and it has abundant food stocks, including penguins, seals, dolphins, and migratory whales. "The public sees images of polar bears drowning on television and they expect us to do something about it," says Polar Bear Conservancy Executive Director Jason Fairbanks. "The time to act is now." Fairbanks says the entire program will be complete by 2012. The program is expected to cost $30 million U.S., or approximately $10,000 U.S. per polar bear. The Polar Bear Conservancy has raised the first $15 million from corporate donors and is seeking additional funding through industry and government partnerships."

LOL at "near-certain extinction by 2020". Last I heard there something like 25,000 polar bears in the wild, and populations have been increasing in the last few decades. But I guess all 25,000 are doomed in the next 10 years

2/24/2009 11:20:44 AM

check the date on your data

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/31/155730/362

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM. Reason : +]

2/24/2009 11:30:53 AM

^^that's the most absurd thing I've read all day. Sweet Jesus.

2/24/2009 11:59:37 AM

That tends to happen when you quote April fool's stories

2/24/2009 12:08:58 PM

Indeed.

I got fooled. Me and John McCain both

2/24/2009 12:18:28 PM

>.<

I didn't read the date

2/24/2009 1:18:44 PM

Here's a good example of how "green minded" the European governments really are:

Quote :

"Green Trade War Warming to protectionism. Just as more scientists acknowledge that we don't know as much about the Earth's climate as Al Gore says, it's becoming clearer that environmental policies won't lead to some green economic boom. See the latest trans-Atlantic spat over biodiesel. EU trade ministers voted Tuesday to apply punitive tariffs to biodiesel imported from the U.S. The measure is supposed to level the playing field for European producers, who complain that U.S. subsidies for the crop-based fuel have led to a 25-fold increase in American biodiesel sales to Europe since 2006. Neither side is in the right here -- which makes the case such a good illustration of the way green policies warp markets... ...Enter Europe, which claims U.S. biodiesel makers are dumping their excess fuel on EU markets, taking advantage of U.S. subsidies to undercut domestic firms. If EU environmental policies were really about the environment, this arguably would be a good thing. More green fuel for everyone, and on the cheap to boot. Not so fast. It turns out that Europe -- which also isn't known for restraint in supporting farmers -- is more interested in protecting its own biodiesel industry than in seeing motorists fill their tanks with low-carbon fuel. Hence the new tariff, which comes out to $400-$500 per ton. Aside from the costs of all this subsidizing and penalizing, the EU's tariff makes things worse by encouraging its inefficient biodiesel producers to stay in the market. And all of this despite evidence that fuels like biodiesel increase CO2 emissions compared with fossil fuels...."

You can read the full article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621388796335221.html

Not hard to see where the real motivation is.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 7:53 PM. Reason : title]

3/5/2009 7:52:24 PM

bump by request

6/25/2009 8:30:06 PM

6/25/2009 9:32:51 PM

I was going to edit it, but it all seemed worth reading so if you don't want to read the whole thing I understand...go for bold!

Quote :

"Obama's EPA Makes a Mockery of Due Process Marc Sheppard Surely climate alarmists enjoy enough unfair advantage over their rational counterparts, what with the mainstream media shamelessly suppressing the findings of the latter for political purposes. But now there’s compelling evidence that alarmists within our government have also taken unfair advantage, suppressing the results of their own climate study for the same nefarious reasons. Sixty days ago yesterday, EPA chief Lisa Jackson released the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The proposal initiated a statutory period of public commentary – ending yesterday – providing a forum to experts and interested parties on both sides of the “CO2 as pollutant” issue prior to any regulatory action. But on the final day of the public commentary period, a dispatch was submitted to the EPA accusing them of attempting to cover-up an internal study that imperiled the outcome predetermined by both the agency and its puppeteers – the Obama administration. And the intraagency emails attached to the letter -- submitted by Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) general counsel Sam Kazman [PDF] -- leave little room for doubt. One EPA office director actually demanded that the endangerment-challenging study be barred from circulation within the agency, never disclosed to the public, and not placed in the docket of the proceeding. And, as Kazman observed dead-on, the communications between that EPA National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) Office Director -- Al McGartland -- and study author Alan Carlin, an NCEE Senior Operations Research Analyst, made clear that it was the study’s conclusions rather than its merit that earned it its place on the trash heap. In a March 16 email to McGartland (who in a prior email had forbade his speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues) and three other NCEE staffers, Carlin requested that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin pointed out that roughly two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and that his comments “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” The next day, Carlin received two emails from McGartland. The first announced the director’s decision not to forward Carlin’s comments to OAR, explaining that he could “only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” The second was a direct order arriving eight minutes later: “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.” Now that’s democratic public commentary at work. Can’t imagine why the term bureaucrat is more often than not slung pejoratively. In all likelihood, the threat of CO2 regulation is merely an Administration ruse to coerce legislation. And Waxman-Markey is short on votes, even with proponents in both Houses pushing their skeptical colleagues to capitulate rather than ordain the EPA as the most powerful agency in the country. Remove that specter and remove with it the cap-and-trader’s ace-in-the-hole. Both at home and in Copenhagen in December. Writes Kazman: “CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the docket, and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.” The attorney reminded the agency of Obama’s April 27th speech to the National Academy of Sciences, in which he declared that “under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” He might have also mentioned that during her confirmation hearings in January, Lisa Jackson assured the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, "If I am confirmed, I will administer with science as my guide,” adding that “political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes." At the time, we mocked the glaring absurdity of both oaths. Now we denounce their impudence. And their own mockery of process. "

Regardless of what you think of the blog site, you can't ignore the facts mentioned in this article.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamas_epa_makes_a_mockery_of.html

6/25/2009 10:15:38 PM

I just saw aaronburro posted this in the other thread. I don't care, it stays!

6/25/2009 10:21:35 PM

I saw this recently and thought it was relevant and interersting

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/06/22/synthetic.tree.climate.change.ccs/index.html

Basically - a "synthetic tree" with a (claimed) carbon capture efficiency of 1000x its natural analogue.

I sometimes have to wonder where things like terraforming come into play in the debate - things like capturing carbon out of the atmosphere (like here), or as one of Obama's science advisors proposed, putting a fine aerosol in the upper atmosphere to increase albedo.

6/25/2009 10:39:21 PM

Quote :

"putting a fine aerosol in the upper atmosphere to increase albedo."

So so so so so so bad.

6/25/2009 10:54:08 PM

fine aerosol in the upper atmosphere? >>>> CHEMTRAILS

we knew it, the conspiracy is true

6/25/2009 10:54:49 PM

Quote :

"So so so so so so bad."

Would you care to expand upon your comment? This is not spraying CFCs - this is spreading very fine, dust-like particles which reflect light.

6/25/2009 11:00:21 PM

Because these particles would likely be placed in the stratosphere. Once there, how would you go about removing them once the earth enters its natural cooling trend? How will these aerosol particles interact the molecules already present in the atmosphere? To me, this sounds as dangerous as attempting to control hurricanes but with even worse consequences.

6/26/2009 2:51:25 AM

^I totally agree, and for anyone in the Obama administration to suggest this shows (IMO) how absurd a lot of these people are.

6/26/2009 8:22:08 AM

Quote :

"The EPA's internal nightmare over global warming: Part 1 June 25, 2:54 PM Because I was on deadline (no excuse) I didn't credit Anthony Watts and his weblog Watts Up With That for a) alerting me to this issue in the first place, b) providing adequate background to help my understanding enough of the issue to proceed and c) facilitating contact with the source interviewed below. I have mentioned Mr. Watts and his weblog on numerous occasions (I'm not affiliated with them, by the way), but certainly not enough on this occasion. Watts Up With That, winner of the Science Blog of the Year, has once again provided an invaluable service to those interested in issues surrounding global warming. A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2. The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord with the EPA's view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw Carlin's report and said that it was 'based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant scientific publications' that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant. The EPA's draft Endangerment Finding was initially written over a year ago during the Bush administration, and Lisa Jackson (the new head of the EPA) and her team wanted to get the Finding out on or near Earth Day, according to a schedule that was made public about a week before formal publication of the proposal. The draft was submitted to agency workgroups with only one week for review and comment, which is unprecedented, and received only light comments--except for Carlin's. Alan Carlin, who had hosted a series of seminars featuring peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the IPCC reports (but were unattended by members of the workgroup developing the Endangerment Finding) went public (UPDATE: Mr. Carlin, who I interviewed this evening, says that he did not approach the Competitive Enterprise Institute and did not know they were involved until a reporter contacted him on Tuesday). via the Competitive Enterprise Institute after realising that there would be no debate about the science. The lectures by the scientists are available on the EPA website, but were not even mentioned in the Finding. Carlin was advised to get an attorney--and has since been reassigned to mundane work, some of which is normally performed by outside contractors. All this comes despite the peculiar bind the EPA finds itself in. Regulating CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act is not something they really want to do--unless new legislation makes it possible for them to ignore smaller emitters. As it stands, the EPA would find it necessary to regulate entities as small as churches and schools, if they have buses that emit more than 250 tons of CO2 per year. But there is no certainty that new legislation will arrive at all, much less contain the restrictions the EPA needs. Meanwhile, the many comments received by the EPA will now be evaluated. Our source indicates that it is most likely that the initial compilation and review will be conducted by outside contractors, who may also provide draft responses, which is really supposed to be done only by EPA staff. Our source notes that the EPA may not have the expertise to evaluate many of the comments, as they are more charged with dealing with the effects of global warming through regulation rather than determining the true nature of the cause. Our source says members of the workgroup complained to other EPA staff that they don't understand these issues, much less how to relate the scientific studies identified in Carlin's report to the IPCC report."

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d25-The-EPAs-internal-nightmare-over-global-warming-Part-1

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 9:55 AM. Reason : link]

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM. Reason : strike out]

6/26/2009 9:55:11 AM

Quote :

"Because these particles would likely be placed in the stratosphere. Once there, how would you go about removing them once the earth enters its natural cooling trend? How will these aerosol particles interact the molecules already present in the atmosphere? To me, this sounds as dangerous as attempting to control hurricanes but with even worse consequences."

Except the point is to stabilize temperature, and therefore one would (in theory at least) calculate the albedo increase necessary to reflect enough of the Sun's rays to offset the temperature increase. Temperature naturally reaches an equilibrium - once the aerosol is there, the albedo is stable, which means the solar flux reaching the ground is constant. There is no "cooling cycle" to worry about - what fluctuations exist as the temperature reaches steady-state are second-order and aren't really relevant, here. In other words, there's no "acceleration" or "runaway" effect, here - incident radiance and thus temperature hits a new equilibrium.

And they're inert. We know how inert particles interact with the atmosphere because it happens every day. It's called "dust."

Look, you people are getting far too hung up on one example when the question really is a matter of whether or not technology can be used to mitigate or reverse the effects of AGW - like, for instance, large-scale carbon scrubbers.

6/26/2009 6:04:39 PM

Quote :

"And they're inert...It's called "dust.""

Inert dust, eh?

Quote :

"There is no "cooling cycle" to worry about "

Would like a word with you. . .

Quote :

"which means the solar flux reaching the ground is constant."

Insolation is never constant, can not be made constant* and we do not want it to be constant.

*at least not made constant by humans. In time the earth will stop rotating, the atmosphere will be blown off and then you will get your constant insolation.

6/26/2009 8:24:21 PM

Just look at this--what an outrage! Fine this polluter!

6/26/2009 8:35:25 PM

Quote :

"Inert dust, eh?"

It's not a halogen, which means we're not seeing crazy chemistry. Happy, now?

Quote :

"Would like a word with you. . ."

Look, you're changing albedo by a fixed amount. You're going to oscillate about an equilibrium value. Basic physics.

Quote :

"Insolation is never constant, can not be made constant* and we do not want it to be constant. *at least not made constant by humans. In time the earth will stop rotating, the atmosphere will be blown off and then you will get your constant insolation."

Christ, you know what I fucking love? Nit-picking. I fucking love arguments over nit-picking. It makes everyone involved look so much more intelligent. Let's forgo context and just get right down to being right on the most banal technical grounds.

6/26/2009 9:06:52 PM

Hey, you are the one who asked me to explain myself. Unlike others around here I don't gain any epeen by utilizing my education. I just can not stand blatantly wrong information being spouted off by armchair meteorologists.

6/26/2009 9:37:06 PM

Quote :

"Unlike others around here I don't gain any epeen by utilizing my education."

I, for one, find this statement unconvincing.

6/26/2009 9:39:34 PM

I am sorry that you feel that way, but like I said you asked for it. I was merely content with my objection to absurdity.

6/26/2009 10:04:40 PM

6/26/2009 10:53:55 PM