U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2009, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,027 posts, read 5,524,981 times
Reputation: 1479

Advertisements

Ha! Another fake wingnut story. Why are you all so gullible?

Quote:
It turns out that the report, written by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, is drawn heavily from the contrarian blogosphere, especially Ken Gregory of the Calgary-based "astroturf" group Friends of Science. And in one case, a lengthy "analysis" of a recent peer-reviewed paper has been lifted, without attribution, straight out of World Climate Report, the climate "news" blog run by uber-contrarian Pat Michaels. (source)
It's a report written by economists, with very questionable sources. It should probably be withdrawn and reviewed - unlike, say, that DHS report on the potential for right-wing violence that should have been released but was pulled back because of all the cry-babies on the right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2009, 09:50 AM
 
26,181 posts, read 18,884,167 times
Reputation: 14036
some green nutter's blog vs. the actual suppressed report and corresponding emails?

lmao!

wriggle, writhe, and spin as you will, there is no doubt whatsoever that the EPA suppressed an internal report for political reasons- the same thing that caused shrieking fits of apoplexy by our resident leftists when it was allegedly done under the bush admin.

Quote:
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."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
7,450 posts, read 5,800,577 times
Reputation: 2170
Things like this do harm the scientific process.

But then again, there are also "scientific" dissenters to evolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 10:10 AM
 
Location: PNW
693 posts, read 650,518 times
Reputation: 159
Once again...I'm shocked this could happen. I never expected it and could never see it coming.....oh wait....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 11:16 AM
 
3,568 posts, read 3,269,702 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
It's a shame that consensus != science.
Don't mistake the trees for the forest. You're missing the big picture here. It's George Bush's fault. George Bush is human. Ergo, a human caused global warming. Got it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 11:47 AM
 
26,181 posts, read 18,884,167 times
Reputation: 14036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
But then again, there are also "scientific" dissenters to evolution.
that is true.

until such folks begin publishing in peer-reviewed journals or submitting internal reports for government entities, they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 11:58 AM
 
1,905 posts, read 2,173,862 times
Reputation: 543
So this is great legislation for America. It will take manufacturing from here where we do have environmental laws and shift them to countries like China who do not. That will go a long way to save the climate. Right there is shows that the climate is not the priority here.

I know that people on this forum find it impossible to believe any analysis that does not support their way of thinking but the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 this scam would reduce the aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion and destroy an average of 844,000 jobs on an annual basis. Unemployment would rise by almost 2 million and consumers electricity rates would explode, as Barry himself said by 90% adjusted for inflation, also gas prices would rise by 74% residential natural gas by 55%.

As always, the hardest hit would be 95% of the working families Barry keeps telling are protected from tax increases. The sad thing is that about 50% of Americans are ignorant enough to actually believe that crap.
No, they won't raise your taxes, they will raise them on those evil corporations and have them collect it from you.

The goal of this junk legislation is to reduce co2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 and that would produce a 0.05 degree Celsius reduction (in theory).

It's a scam to grab more power, not to help the environment or create jobs because it will actually do neither.

So, yeah, lets give it a try, what do (our kids) have to lose? Gotta support your party, even if it means your kids lose out. Gooooo TEAM!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,120,926 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
The scientists don't refute climate change. They all agree the climate is changing.

What they question is what causes it. Gore and his industrial scientists say it's carbon dioxide.

Besides this EPA blocked paper, other scientists are questioning the validity of it being carbon dioxide. Data is coming back now to show the planet is cooling, not warming; the ice blocks are not melting and increased carbon dioxide did not increase temperature.

None of this seems to be hitting the MSM though and cap & trade can't seem to get passed quick enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Hmm. I don't think that's the case. The consensus is that it's human activity that is contributing to it. The disagreements are in what the effects of global warming will be, and if they are any cause for alarm.

In order to believe that global warming theories are false, you would have to believe that scientists and their organizations are either lying by choice or are being coerced into lying about it. I do think the latter could be true, but the "official" opinion is that human activity is contributing to global warming.
AND you have read that PDF that uggabugga provided? You don't sound like you did but then maybe you are still taken in by all those "scientists", most of whom weren't climatologists, who kept on supporting the IPCC which this paper says weren't right much of the time. The info they based their opinions was flawed from the start and this paper says just that.

Surely scientists, most of whom are climatologists, can say that the old flawed info shouldn't be used anymore. Do you see any reason that the administration decided about two weeks after that paper came out that they would proceed with the old info? I see lots of it especially with the number of people in DC who have money involved in GW and CC machinery etc. I guess that must not be as obvious to most as it is to me. The EPA director is the one who was pushing the cow fart tax so hard 3 or so months ago. At least the Congress took care of that pile of crap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,120,926 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
The consensus is among scientists and their organizations.
The consensus is among "scientists" who get huge grants of money from the UN and its groups. Most of those scientists do not happen to be climatologists. I wonder why science is broken down into specific studies if this crap is true. Let the physiologists predict weather and so on. Nope, not for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,120,926 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
Now how will El Gordo keep his pockets lined at our expense if we are not forced to swallow the so called science supported by those that will profit from it.
Maybe this is part of the need for speed in enacting that piece of crap the other day. I think it is just that and Algore isn't the only politician who is involved in the need for speed there, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:48 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top