Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://tinyurl.com/p6w5wz - broken link)
Quote:
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.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
Could this be? The administration that swore to return science to it's rightful place suppressing scientific information that is contrary to its policy goals? I can't believe it.
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://tinyurl.com/p6w5wz - broken link)
Could this be? The administration that swore to return science to it's rightful place suppressing scientific information that is contrary to its policy goals? I can't believe it.
That was a talking point brought up in yesterday's hearings before the vote by a Republican who was against it. Nothing came of it.
If that report backed up their claims then it would have been published.
Science is good but only if it backs up their claims ?
They are as good as big pharma and their "scientific studies" to the FDA for drug approval or Monsanto and their "scientific studies" and chemical approval.
That was a talking point brought up in yesterday's hearings before the vote by a Republican who was against it. Nothing came of it.
I watched it live, they were looking for it but couldn't find the report.. hence the reason the CBS article reports that it was suppressed. The link from the CBS site goes here, it's draft document from March:
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://tinyurl.com/p6w5wz - broken link)
Could this be? The administration that swore to return science to it's rightful place suppressing scientific information that is contrary to its policy goals? I can't believe it.
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://tinyurl.com/p6w5wz - broken link)
Could this be? The administration that swore to return science to it's rightful place suppressing scientific information that is contrary to its policy goals? I can't believe it.
So we should listen to a economist?
They know what they are talking about..........
The contradict themselves a few times in the document, and have a collection of un-peer reviewed charts and statements. Part of it is lifted from Ken Gregory's blog and his "Friends of Science" anti- lobbing group.
Scientific information is peer reviewed, not a one-oft article or 98 page report created with a goal in mind.
More manufactured "data" for a select audience. Nothing suppressed, just more garbage for the landfill.
Why suppress it and order them not to talk to anyone about it?
Quote:
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.
If it's garbage let it stand or fall on its own merits. This is and has been the primary issue with global warming debate as anyone that even thinks to question it is labeled a "denier", pushed to the side or ignored. You can't have honest and open debate if you simply don't let the other side speak.
The EPA has a record of doing this FYI , here's an eye opening article that has some similarities to this situation. Going back to 1992 when the environmentalist movement really started ramping up:
The EPA vs. Ed Krug (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/epavskrug.html - broken link)
Quote:
Krug is respected in his field. His mentor, John Tedrow, a world-renowned soil scientist at Rutgers University, says that Krug borders "on genius." Krug has developed an internationally accepted theory on lake acidity. He has published in prestigious scientific journals. He organized the Acid Rain Symposium at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served as an adviser to two directors of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But today, because of politics, he cannot find work in his field.
After Krug appeared on 60 Minutes to talk about what his research for NAPAP revealed about the relationship between acid rain and acidic lakes, the EPA branded him a scientist of "limited credibility," called his statements "outlandish," and said he was "on the fringes of environmental science." The Agency, under pressure, later recanted those accusations.
After he published an internationally praised acid-rain assessment, the EPA organized a scathing secret review that other scientists called a "sham." The producer of the 60 Minutes broadcast says the EPA attempted to discredit Krug while CBS was preparing the story. The EPA denied the charges.
Why did this happen? "He was," a colleague says, "a bit immature in the area of political science."
Yes, political posturing is common for both sides of the aisle. I still think Obama is much more pro-science compared to Bush, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
