Secret Climate Change Evidence Obama Tried to Hide
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml
June 26, 2009 11:09 PM
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. “My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide),” he said. “There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They’re not going up, and if anything they’re going down.”
Carlin’s report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s “little evidence” that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature.

Reply

Another one of your phony web sites, put up by the alarmists.
Stick a fork in it, your global warming is done !
http://climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

Reply

Whenever we go into any country, you can bet somebody is making a LOT of money on it.In Vietnam it was Dow Chemical and their Agent Orange.It’s useless to be anywhere in the middle east. They’ve been at war amongst themselves for thousands of years. Russia pulled out of the middle east when they realized they’d never “win” but were spending too much money doing it. OIL is why we’re in the middle east-to use up their reserves before the US reopens their oil fields and makes the rest of the world dependent on us.
Why are we going back to the moon? The sky is overloaded with satellites-the US wants to claim the moon before anybody else does and set up satellite stations to broadcast back to earth.

Reply

Common Dreams provides links to informed and credible analysis which is an essential counterpoint to the “weapons of mass distraction” being packaged and sold and misrepresented as news by the corporate media !
for example :
Naomi Klein: Capitalism, Sarah Palin-Style
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/25-3
from Naomi’s article in “The Progressive” :
“What Palin was saying is what is built into the very DNA of capitalism: the idea that the world has no limits. She was saying that there is no such thing as consequences, or real-world deficits. Because there will always be another frontier, another Alaska, another bubble. Just move on and discover it. Tomorrow will never come.
This is the most comforting and dangerous lie that there is.
Capitalism can survive this crisis.
But the world can’t survive another capitalist comeback.”

Reply

Brian, I’ll write this slowly so you can understand…(obviously, the other times I’ve tried to explain this to you have gone over your head).
Global Warming is a misnomer for what’s happening.
Global Warming is actually the phrase that got pushed by the conservative community to rob what’s happening with our climate of a sense of impending danger. (Global warming doesn’t sound that scary, does it? Warm is a nice word…)
You can and should search the Net for George Lakoff’s work on language framing — he has researched and written extensively on just this issue.
We are experiencing global climate change. As such, temperatures are fluctuating wildly in various parts of the planet. So, your Accuweather link actually is further proof that climate change is happening.
You’re now supporting everyone else’s arguments.
Excellent!

Reply

Oh, So we now need to say “climate change” instead of global warming. So the earth is not warming then? I think I saw this posted earlier but it’s worth repeating, the climate is always changing, Leigh. If it wasn’t it would be a pretty boring place. I don’t think we should expect a perfectly controlled climate in our world all the time. If you look at the total amount of CO2 in our atmoshere it is a very small number, compared to the other gases ( by the way trees like CO2) the total CO2 that is produced by man is an even smaller, a tiny tiny number. CO2 is not a pollutant.
Anyway there is no use in trying to persuade the faithful.

Reply

Hi Brian,
I visited your Ojai Valley Bee Farm website. It’s great. I’m gonna try to put a live link here. If it doesn’t work, will try again.
Ojai Events
Did you ever hear of the amazing bee man in Meiners Oaks? When I was growing up we called him “Mr. Biggers.” I remember he was so connected to nature and attune to his bees he used to show how he could have a mouthful of bees swarming in his mouth–he had a long beard made out of bees… I remember he went on some TV show to demonstrate how bees don’t sting him …and suddenly for a moment his eyes sort of crossed and flickered…one or two bees had crawled down his throat…but then they crawled back up again…
From your biography and web site you seem like a person who is connected to nature. My deepest wish is that we human beings can have a respectful dialogue about everything that is happening on the Planet…

Reply

To Brian,
I remember now, the bee man’s name was George Biggers.

Reply

“Anyway there is no use in trying to persuade the faithful.”
Well, there we can agree, Brian.
The vast majority of scientists in the world agree that we have impacted the climate, and we’re staring down the barrel of serious problems.
There is evidence of these changes all over the world. Hundreds of studies by independent scientists. Thousands of pages of documents written about it, from countries all over the world.
Dharma is right and this is most likely an exercise in pointlessness. For whatever reason, you’ve decided that a handful of people, many of whom benefit from the fossil fuel industry, carry more intellectual, scientific, analytic, and ethical weight than the rest of the world. Furthermore, you’re apparently incapable of even questioning whether this is something that you should consider.
It can’t be all that comfortable to stand there with your fingers in your ears singing “loo, loo, loo” all the time, but apparently you’ve gotten used to it. The flat earthers and the heliocentrists would be proud.
I dare you to read this:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04
If you do, and would like to actually discuss scientific processes, I’d be happy to do that. Otherwise, I’m done wasting my time trying to help you understand. I point to proof and you call me names…

Reply

I have pointed to reputable sources to support my arguments. All I hear is the mantra that the whole rest of the world has decided that global warming is really a big problem. There are many people that are not convinced of that, many reputable scientists. But I’m willing to conceed that, for the sake of argument, that global warming exists and that it is caused by CO2. Are we going to throw the whole country into slavery by enacting these outragous measures that will effectively ruin the future for the younger generation?

Reply

First, back to Mr. Biggers, the bee bearded bee man of Meiners Oaks.
The above mentioned OVN’s states he was featured three times on the television show, Ripley’s Believe It Or Not.
Good title: Global Warming, Believe It Or Not!
How about those of us with different opinions read each other’s sources…I’m game to do that. (And I think Tyler already has…)
I think Leigh’s “dare” to Brian in Comment #17, is fair enough. I hope he takes her up on it.
And in response to Comment #19:
“Are we going to throw the whole country into slavery by enacting these outragous measures that will effectively ruin the future for the younger generation?”
There is nothing that will more effectively ruin the future for the younger generation than the effects of global warming.
Brian, I/we would LOVE to be wrong about this! I will gladly read your sources. For the sake of the bees…peace, brother…

Reply

Here’s one, I’ve got lots more.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

Reply

How do disbelievers respond to this?
“Disappearing summer sea ice poses considerable dangers, scientists have warned. Ice shelves are used by animals such as polar bears as platforms for hunting seals and other sea creatures. Without them, they could starve. In addition, ice reflects solar radiation. Without that process, the Arctic sea could warm up even more. The phenomenon threatens to set off runaway heating of the planet, say climatologists.”

Reply

Hi Brian, just to let you know I read the link you gave in Comment #24 but I do not have the background (yet) to understand it… will read more of your references during breaks…
Did you have a chance to read the link Leigh gave in Comment #17?
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04
I will read it later today.

Reply

Brian, your link to the abstract by C. R. de Freitas et al is great. It’s real science. And it’s from one of the few people who are in or on the edges of the scientific community who aren’t fairly openly supported by the oil industry.
de Freitas is one of the more vocal legitimate scientists who thinks that global warming is less manmade than most. He also has lots of arguments about it with his colleagues and is by no means in the majority. He’s an outlier in the field.
Here’s a published argument between him and Jean Palutikof, who works with the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/aug/16/comment.weather
He makes some good points, though I do think his comments about C02 are a bit disingenuous.
And I guess my question in response to the research article you cited is, if SOI (which is basically atmospheric disturbance associated with El Nino/El Nina) is responsible for the climatic changes of the last century, what has heightened the disturbances? While obviously SOI has been happening for thousands, or even millions, of years, and isn’t caused by global climate change, El Nino’s and El Nina’s been particularly intense recently. Entire coral reefs have died off, for example. And there is a great deal of speculation that warmer sea temps caused by climate change cause greater SOI’s.
And here, from NASA:
El Nino related fires increase greenhouse gas levels (specifically C02 and methane):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0102firenino.html
And El Nino’s Pacific rains can affect world weather:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0818elNino.html
So — it seems to me he’s asking the wrong question. It’s not “are the climate variations caused by SOI” but, instead, “what’s causing the growing intensity of SOI?” Because SOI obviously affects weather all over the world — if greenhouse gases are affecting SOI, then they are affecting climate change.
Sorry if the science methodology website I pointed to felt condescending to you — I’m having a hard time making sense of your ability to read and understand an abstract about global tropospheric temperature anomalies one day and your suggestion that oil is less destructive than vegetables another.

Reply

Brian -
Good question.
Higher standards of living, including education, sanitation, electricity, clean water are absolutely a moral imperative and should be considered more a right than a privilege.
None of this has to rely on oil – it can all be built in sustainable ways. And it increasingly will – in third world nations, there is very little infrastructure, so you can leapfrog technology, and do it very inexpensively.
Again, you don’t have to have oil. And you don’t need to consume like an American, whose consumption rate of energy vastly exceeds everyone else in the world.
Costa Rica is 99% powered by renewable energy. That’s phenomenal when you consider the US is maybe 10%.
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/costa-rica-is-99-powered-by-renewable-energy.html
So when you describe what are essentially basic needs, it is absolutely possible to do that in a sustainable, renewable way, without oil.

Reply

Thanks for these comments and links Brian…there are so many things to consider…too tired to say more…

Reply

Brian, I too agree that your points on Costa Rica are well made.
Tyler hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “Higher standards of living, including education, sanitation, electricity, clean water are absolutely a moral imperative and should be considered more a right than a privilege.”
All the world’s problems are intimately connected. We may not agree on the best ways to solve them but I think any thinking person can see that the Planet cannot sustain the spread of the American lifestyle: two or more cars for every family, dryers and air-conditoners that run 24/7, etc.,etc.,
The subject of poverty and climate change is addressed in a recent report entitled, “The Future is Here: Climate Change in the Pacific.”
Here is a key excerpt related to poverty:
“Climate change has the potential to affect almost every issue linked to poverty and development in the Pacific. Without immediate action 50 years of development gains in poor countries will be permanently lost…”

Reply