Global Warming? No! It Is Now Called Climate Change
Global warming used to be the defining term to represent the increase in the average temperature of the earth during the past 100 years. Recently, the more politically popular term, climate change, has replaced global warming. Why? One main reason is because the earth is currently cooling.“Global warming” obviously entails global average temperature increase, whereas “climate change” is about much more than just temperature. “Climate change” can represent just about anything, which is handy when the earth doesn’t happen to cooperate with climate models predicting future climate catastrophe. If the earth gets too cold, if it gets too hot, if there happens to be a slight increase or decrease in storm/drought/precipitation frequency or intensity, all of these events can be blamed on “climate change.”
It is hard to advocate for overbearing regulations that attempt to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions when global temperatures have been stable or declining. In fact, in at least the last seven years, global temperatures have declined, despite increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. As it turns out, the term “global warming” is a little inconvenient for doomsayers predicting runaway global temperatures. Using the term “climate change” supports the modern-day witch hunt that allows any weather anomaly to be blamed on human activity.
The truth is that climate always changes. Every year, decade, and century is different from the last. If climate policies are honestly aimed at reducing global temperatures, then governments should stick to the term “global warming,” instead of using the ambiguous term “climate change” to regulate every sector of the economy, regardless of the actual temperature of earth.
Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center.
The truth is that climate always changes. Every year, decade, and century is different from the last. If climate policies are honestly aimed at reducing global temperatures, then governments should stick to the term “global warming,” instead of using the ambiguous term “climate change” to regulate every sector of the economy, regardless of the actual temperature of earth.
Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center.
Arizona fewest days below 100 in a long, long time.
She's a coolin' out there.
These cap and tax fools are just life's losers who want their pathetic lives to have meaning, so they grab on to an issue - any issue - and pretend they are making a difference.
How many of them have sold their cars???
I generally erupt into laughter at this point as there is something rather funny about staking a claim on something that has a fifty percent chance of success, screwing it up, and then implying that everyone else is somehow deficient in not accepting of the track covering by nomenclature shift.
Histories doomsayers always fade into obscurity. However, what is most annoying is that in the endgame, when predictions have not been met, what once strained the limits of credulity now challenges the strength of ones civility. This is where we are now in the AGW movement.
> really are showing our ignorance and insensitivity.
I don't know about insensitive, but using the term "climate change" is a simple recognition that the problem is far more than one of temperatures. It includes significant changes in precipitation as well (in fact, this may be turning out to be the earliest and most serious aspect of the problem), possibly stronger storms, etc. And it recognizes that the consequences of warming in some places can possibly lead to cooling in order places (such as if the northern Atlantic current is diminished).
Climate change is a political movement not real science. The sooner the public comes to see this the better we will all be.
Those words are a simple recognition of the fact that all scientific statements have associated with them a certain uncertainty. (In fact, any scientific conclusion may in principle be wrong.) This can be quantified in many experiments and measurements, but not in all scientific statements. "Smoking may cause lung cancer" is one example. Would you rather read "85.46 +/- 2.56% of those with at least stage II lung cancer (p=0.95) smoked at least 1.75 +/- 0.53 packs of cigarettes a day for 15.6 +/- 7.8 yrs starting at age 17.5 +/- 1.9." If so, then you should be reading the scientific literature, where there things are spelled out in the best detail possible, and not the popular media. And even then, not all scientific statements can be precisely honed. Sorry, that's the nature of the discipline. If you have a better one, please, please, show it to us.
Look, as a theoretical physicist, you must certainly be aware that quantifying the error of an experiment is essential to the results. Unless you have an assessment of the combination of errors of measurement, combined with the rate of predictability of the outcome, you've got nothing.
This has really approached the absurd level. Now AGW wants to be taken seriously as a science, but excused from all the rigors one expects of any other scientific field, and this put forth by someone with a theoretical physics degree. Excuse me if my assessment of the worthiness of that concept approaches zero.
That's all well and good, but my bookie could have told my that.
Actually at least my bookie could have given me odds.
> Change" seeks to predict is that something, possibly, may,
> happen?
Yes Rupert, that's exactly what it says. That's what all science says -- it can't tell you anything useful! Nothing!! For by quantum mechanics we know any configuration of atoms, no matter how large or complex, may suddenly form in the atmosphere or the Gulf of Mexico or right in front of you. it is possible that the average temperature in the room you're in right now will suddenly increase to 200 C and you'll be boiled alive in the next 3 seconds. No kidding -- this is a possibility. So you'd better put your flame-retardant suit back on.
Jeez.
You take a few year temperature graph that shows one dip and manage to ignore that this decade has been the warmest on record. Ridiculous.
Ok, that starts my week off right. Funny stuff Dean, funny stuff.
And what is really really funny is that global temperature records go back the the 1880s. Ha ha! And that not only do these records show a mostly steady rise in temperature, but scientists are also measuring the melting of glaciers, the early migrations of animals, the acidification of the ocean, and multiple other clear signs of climate change! What a hoot! You should be rolling on the floor by now Rupert!
Temperature records are available for at least the past 100 years however accurate satellite measurements only started in 1979.
Surface station temperature records for the United States are provided by the United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and provide the temperature record for dates prior to 1979 through approximately 1200 stations scattered throughout the U.S.
Unfortunately the surface station temperature records are flawed due to improper siting procedures, changes in instrumentation, and the urban heat island effect.
Surfacestations.org analyzed and reviewed over 70% of the surface stations in the USHCN network and found that about 89% of these stations have poor quality issues that result in temperature errors between 1 to 5 degrees Celsius.
And scientists have been looking at any purported UHI for a long time. The IPCC 4AR WG1 says "Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series."
Also, surface thermometers and satellites do not measure the same thing. The latter measures the "bulk temperature," which is the average temperature up to about 8 km.
Finally, Watt's claims are hardly established (or accepted) science and, as far as I know, have not even been submitted to a scientific journal.
JK: That is just plain crap.
You can see the UHI in any local weather report. The US government even recognized up to 4-5 degrees of UHI effect. Even you can measure it by simple driving into Portland with a thermometer.
Please quit your lying - it just wastes people's time.
They said its contribution to trends is small. If you're going to criticize the science, at least read it first.
You can't just keep dismissing the scientific record because you don't like what it has concluded. There is simply no logical argument that the world's climate scientists are making all this up.
And at least admit that your post is in error on 2 counts:
1) That "climate change" is a new term
2) That the earth is now "cooling"
Wrong and wrong again. You are simply misleading gullible people.
You have never been able to satisfactorily answer the question( nor has any other warmer) as to how a colored absorber like CO2 that absorbs its IR radiation at and around the 15 micron wavelength can raise the effective emission height of the troposphere when it made NO CONTRIBUTION in establishing the current emission altitude to begin with. That was caused exclusively by water vapor, David, and if you knew anything much about the physics, you would question the claims of warmers who assert the gas has the equivalent or greater absorbing and radiating power of water vapor, regardles of the shorter wavelengths of absorption and emission as well as abundance of water vapor.
The claim that storms get stronger if the earth gets warmer is an idiotic falsehood perpetrated by people like you that also falsely assert by your claims that you are an expert in meteorology when you are in fact, woefully ignorant of the subject. Cyclonic energy ( except at tropical latitudes ) is created by potential energy accumulation across the latitudes that is exclusivly generated by differential heating, a process that would be stymied if the claim that CO2 was radiating the earth to higher temperatures were true, but it is not.
These claims of yours are baseless and fradulent and you continue to make them regardless of being told the truth. You also did the same thing with hurricanes ( Katrina ) and you have no idea of what you're talking about here, either. To top that all off, you run around different websites, hiding behind different ID's and denying who you are and what you have said on these sites. This is hardly the sort of behavior that someone would expect to see from someone like you, who claims a Ph.D. in physics and to be knowledgeable about science. Your behavior is more akin to a political hack, that is tied to special interest groups like the climate pimps who want cap and trade to steal from the public at large under a bogus and false pretense to grossly enrirch themselves.
Your posts are scientifically wrong and you are deliberately misleading those you speak to on these sites not to accept what is factually correct about meteorology and atmospheric science after being told of your gross errors and being unable to prove your claims yet continue to spread them around any website you talk about climate on.
Chuck F. Wiese
Meteorologist
> climate change HAS NEVER BEEN SCIENTIFICALY PROVEN
Chuck, I am still waiting for your authorship of a scientific paper, submitted to a real scientific journal (that includes peer-review) of this argument. When can we expect this?
Going on the Lars Larson show does not constitute peer-review.
> hiding behind different ID's and denying who you are
> and what you have said on these sites.
And your proof of this is...what?
You don't have any.
In fact, I sign every blog post and comment with my real name and contact information. I am not afraid to have my name attached to my opinions.
> change, has replaced global warming.
I don't know how you got that impression. The international body intended to deal with the problem, formed in 1992, was called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), not the UNFCGW.
(Recall, this was the treaty which GHW Bush signed, signifying America's commitment to to addressing the problem, a treaty we have continually broken ever since.)
Likewise, the scientific organization formed to deal with the problem is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), not the IPGW. This organization was formed in 1988 -- 21 years ago.
By the way, the Hadley Centre just announced that May 09 was the warmest May in four years. Nine of the last 11 months have been warmer than the year before.
Are there natural fluctuations? Sure. But this decade is the warmest in recorded history.
JK: Just for the record:
The Hadley center has a long history of climate alarmism.
Here is well respected satellite data:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/COT79-09.JPG
This from DA who is always screaming that weather isn't climate when it doesn't support AGW.
Funny stuff.
An important 1971 Science paper on the topic by Rasool and Schneider was titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate." Note their work was on "climate," not "temperature."
Face it, AGW/"Climate Change" is dying on the vine, and you're losing your job.
Frankly, it is my opinion you also need to lose your life for your transgressions.
Callendar, G.S. (1938). "The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-40.
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) have announced that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
As Fermi said, "science is not a democracy." and thousands of (unlabeled) arbitrary college graduates do not carry nearly the weight of a couple of Nobel Laureates or people who have proven themselves in the field.
I suspect you know all this, but you would clearly rather offer inaccurate caricatures in the name of politics.
Gore also defends the movie's underlying science and says An Inconvenient Truth gives him a stronger platform on the issue of global warming than did his position as vice president or his presidential candidacy
> No evidence of polar bears drowning. (ie: Gore lied)
> There is no evidence of Pacific atolls evacuation having yet happened. (ie: Gore lied)
> those two graphs of temperature and CO2 do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. (ie: Gore lied)
> Gore's claim of sea level rising is not in line with the scientific consensus. (ie: Gore lied)
> there is insufficient evidence to show that Hurricane Katrina was caused by GW (ie: Gore lied)
> it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change. (ie: Gore lied)
> it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish that lake Chad's shrinking is due to AGW (ie: Gore lied)
> it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future. (ie: Gore lied)
> Coral reefs: separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. (ie: Gore lied)
Does this mean Jim, that at long last you now accept the scientific consensus on Global Climate Change, and if you don't you are telling lies?
Just checking.
> ALWAYS "ACC" and it was NEVER "AGW".
That's not what I said. The media, especially early on, have certainly simplified the issue and often use/used the words "global warming" when what they meant were "climate change." So have advocacy groups on both sides, as with Todd's simplified claim of "global cooling." But scientists have not considered the problem simply one of warming for many decades. Arrhenius (in 1896) may have been the last one, but then, it was natural (and actually smart) that one of the first investigations into the subject focused only on one variable.
Therefore, since it is now maintained that this change is not in any specific direction of temperature, can we now expect your hearty endorsement that the attempt to lessen warming, through systems such as cap and trade, could actually worsen things?
In other words, if you are not willing to predict the directions man made effects on nature are pushing us, can we please have a justification as to why you believe man should now change behaviour so as to affect direction in one way?
Why is this "laughable" when you were just shown that it has been climate change since the beginning of the discussion decades ago? What is it you are laughing at exactly?
"Therefore, since it is now maintained that this change is not in any specific direction of temperature..."
Who said that? Where did you get that conclusion from? There is still a globally averaged temperature direction upwards. But it is not uniform, and the impacts are not limited to temperature alone. Is that so hard to get or are you being deliberately obtuse?
From the shift from emphasis on the term global warming to climate change. The CYA mode AGW believers are acting in, that's where.
Look, you can look up all the references to climate change that you want. It doesn't change the basic fact that this was sold to us on the basis that the earth is getting warmer due to mans actions. Enthusiasm was ginned up by the salesmen for AGW, people like Al Gore.
You don't like it? You think the hysteria ginned up by Al Gore was overblown and should be discounted because he is not a scientist? Sorry, it's a little late for that now. Your criticism should have been rendered at the time. Not now when all "the earth has a fever" seems to now be covered up with a lot of throat clearing and pretending that it has been climate change all along.
It's perfectly reasonable to hold AGW believers feet to the fire now, when they failed to correct the record then. Otherwise one is left with the impression that they didn't criticize then because the hysteria suited their purpose. Now that it is seeming a little overblown, they try and deny and insist that it was Climate Change all along, not global warming.
Asking people to swallow economy ruining policy based on faith is one thing. Asking people to accept revisionist history simply to cover the butts of the oracles is really a little much.
Your opinion might differ, but my laughter at the lexical gyrations will continue.
I-P-C-C Rupert. It stands for International Panel on Climate Change. It was created in 1988....21 years ago. Its stated objectives are to assess scientific information relevant to:
1. human-induced climate change,
2. the impacts of human-induced climate change,
3. options for adaptation and mitigation.
""Now that it is seeming a little overblown, they try and deny and insist that it was Climate Change all along, not global warming."
It so happens that warming of the average surface temperature of the earth is a big part of this, and is the thing that drives the other climate related issues. As to whether this is "seeming overblown," well you are entitled to your opinion. But facts are facts. Greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the atmosphere, average global temperatures are warming, and lots of other unwanted events and changes are resulting. This is all measurable and is being measured and reported back. The only faith required is the faith that our best chance to understand physical reality is in the findings of science and in the work of scientists.
And perhaps the faith that we have the smarts and resources to overcome this if we choose to accept reality. You lack that faith, so you fight reality. But its a fight you cannot reasonably expect to win. You could help delay dealing with reality, but that is not winning because reality will get you in the end.
> attempt to lessen warming, through systems such as
> cap and trade, could actually worsen things?
Sure! What is reality anyway!? By the same token, Venus could suddenly cool down and become inhabitable. Perhaps you should call your realtor now and get in on it early.
In other words, a theoretical physicist who does not understand that quantification of error in an experiment, is as necessary as the stating the probability of the results of that experiment is less a scientist, and simply someone pursuing a writing career.
The David Appell spoken here has the support of blogger Brian Hines who disparages Chuck Wiese, albeit a very well informed and credible scientist that I agree with.
```One thing of note is the response to HinesSight's blog that goes like this:
"I like the term 'climate change'. 'Global warming' is a stretch because NOBODY understands this current phenomena. If they say they do, their arrogance is insufferable. [capeesh?]
Ice ages have been preceded by brief warming periods, but maybe this time we're destined to roast like chestnuts on an open fire. Maybe not.
We'll just have to deal with what comes, as it comes. However, one thing we do know is that climate change is NORMAL and species adapt or die. This is the way of things.
Will humans adapt? Or die? It's futile to have international conferfences and protocols. How can you get 6+ billion people to change their ways?
How can we be certain it would do any good anyway if we don't even know what is going on?
I would openly debate him any day!
Chuck Wiese
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/22/eco-group-calls-for-volunteers-to-get-arrested-with-james-hansen-to-stop-mtr/#comments
Kevin J. (23:32:26) :
This guy Appell is the typical AGW activist blogger.
He has an interesting take on our friend Watts.
http://oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2415-Global-Warming-No!-It-Is-Now-Called-Climate-Change.html#comments
“It’s funny how Watts likes the data when it supports his point of view, but criticizes it when it doesn’t: http://is.gd/19sD7
And scientists have been looking at any purported UHI for a long time. The IPCC 4AR WG1 says “Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series.”
Also, surface thermometers and satellites do not measure the same thing. The latter measures the “bulk temperature,” which is the average temperature up to about 8 km.
Finally, Watt’s claims are hardly established (or accepted) science and, as far as I know, have not even been submitted to a scientific journal.
#2.1.3.1.1.1.1 David Appell on 2009-06-22 11:49 (Reply)
REPLY: I suppose Appel assumes that knowledge is static, and that I’ve learned nothing of GISS since then. He also fails to note that in the entry he cites, during that period I cited all four global temperature metrics, not just GISS. But I no longer cite GISS. As I said, knowledge is not static. But you can’t please everyone, nor will I try. Appel also doesn’t know how to run a volunteer project. The only way to do so it to provide regular encouraging updates on the progress, which I’ve done on the census as it proceeded. I can’t publish until the data majority is collected, for to do so would heap huge loads of criticism on me (Unless you are JohnV of course at 33% then its OK) for publishing based on a minority sample. Now I have a majority sample, and publication process is beginning. Good things come to those who wait. – Anthony
timetochooseagain (00:21:48) :
Appel’s comment about satellites measuring something different than the surface is in fact technically true…but it is very misleading, since rather than show less trend this should make them show more of a trend. That the surface data are contaminated should really be obvious at this point, and yet the denial (and note the naive IPCC quote) of the evidence proceeds on in the circle…
In the past David has sharply contested the concept of the urban heat island. That is that urban areas are warmer than normal as an artifact of human urban habitation. David constantly finds reasons that no such thing happens or is so minuscule as to be utterly unimportant.
Somewhat parallel and on a separate track is the project started by Anthony Watt. Evaluation of each station in the US surface station network. That project is now nearing completion. At all steps along the way Watt has made the data publicly available and provided some interim overviews. The project is now nearing completion.
Many assume that the US surface station survey conducted by Watt is synonymous with the Urban Heat Island effect. The two are in fact very different. The goal of the surface station survey it to determine how accurately and reliably the surface station instrumentation can measure ambient surface air temperature including local sources of error. IE is it a good or not so good measurement.
In the past David has generally dismissed Watt with "that guy" nothing to see here, move along attitude. More recently the surface station survey has garnered more critical attention, not just from David but other warmers as well. The question is why, suddenly, now?
Well it turns out an internal memo has been circulating within top management at NOAA. The memo is a rebuke of the results of the US surface station survey. Of course no one at "NOAA or NCDC had the professionalism to put their name to the document." A major problem of curse is the final surface station report hasn’t been written yet.
So now we have an unsigned talking points "document" circulating amongst NOAA top management. A "document" that more properly ought to be called a pre-buttal.
The problems don’t stop there. The pre-buttal document references something called "Is The U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?" for which the authorship is uncited. Its worth mentioning here that Anthony Watt did produce an interim mid term report titled "Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"
That one word deletion makes it appear that Watt is questioning the reliability of the entire US temperature record including the satellite UAH and RSS data.
Then within the last week or so the unsigned "document" inspired a response to the surface station survey on the National Climatic Data Center’s web page.
Then a NOAA internal email became available
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:26:48 -0600
From: Andrea Bair ....Bair@noaa.gov
Subject: Talking Points on SurfaceStations.org
To: HICs DivChiefs ...divchiefs@noaa.gov…
Recently I was asked if we had any official talking points on the surfacestations.org report that came out recently. Attached are some talking points from NOAA that we can use.
AB
Note the distribution to Division Chiefs. So it's clear the press is on against the surface stations survey. Anthony Watt responded saying "I find it pretty humorous that NOAA felt that a booklet full of photographs that many said at the beginning “don’t matter” required an organization wide notice of rebuttal.
> urban heat island.
That's absurd, and completely wrong. I have never contested the existence of UHIs.
"In the past David has sharply contested the concept of the urban heat island. That is that urban areas are warmer than normal as an artifact of human urban habitation. David constantly finds reasons that no such thing happens or is so minuscule as to be utterly unimportant."
Do you honestly believe you do not contest and have never contested UHI in your posts here?
Better still, do you honestly believe that any reader of your posts took away the view that you do not contest UHI in any way?
This is what the IPCC summarizes on urban heat islands:
"Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (
If any reader has that impression he/she has not read closely enough.
I have written that scientists have determined that UHIs have a effect on trends (dT/dt) that is about an order of magnitude less than other factors which influence the trend.
little covered so far in the legacy media the EPA has been caught red handed suppressing scientific data as they plan to declare CO2 a deadly pollutant.
Some background is in order here. Sometimes agencies like the EPA, FDA, FCC, or FAA may study a subject for years. During the study period the EPA might have noticed a study titled CO-2 and kitten development. Upon further investigation it might be found that CO-2 refers to Concordant Ocular mode 2 and the authors studied how the mother cats purring during nursing affected kitten development. Although initially promising, the EPA would disregard the study.
Once a proposal moves forward and is placed on the docket the rules change. This is the current status of the CO2 deadly pollutant rule, it's on the docket as a proposed rule making.
The rules are very strict and in many cases ordered by the courts. An example is the Ex Parte rule. What ever the particular agency may call it the rule is simple. No agency person may discuss an open docket subject unless it is documented and made part of the written record. The rule exists to prohibit unethical contamination of the process.
So imagine that you are talking to your neighbor who works at the EPA. The weather is cold and rainy with the potential of making the neighborhood BBQ a potential wash out. As a joke you say to your neighbor I wonder how much of Al Gores CO2 we need to have good BBQ weather. By the book your neighbors response should be "I am sorry, CO2 is an open docket, I may not discuss that with you." I have actually had an experience like that.
Another rule is that every and all work, documents, studies and anything else done during the study period will be documented and provide in the public record for the docket. Somewhere in the record even the purring cat titled CO-2 and kitten development will be listed along with a notation that its not relevant.
Violating the rules during docket is the closest that it comes to a cardinal sin that exists for a bureaucracy.
With that background in mind consider the latest news.
The proposed EPA docket rule classifying CO2 as a dangerous pollutant is based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. That assessment prohibited any research 2006 and later. As a result the EPA has a huge 3 year hole for which the latest research is missing from the record.
During the study period Alan Carlin a Senior Operations Research Analyst at the EPA National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) documented the research record after IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The post IPCC fourth period is notable for the falling temperature trend and a large amount of research finding problems with the IPCC assessment.
I hasten to point out that Carlin acted properly as a researcher, documenting all new research both pro and con. This is precisely how study and docket procedures are supposed to work.
And then everything changed at the EPA
On March 12 2009, Al McGartland NCEE Office Director issued an email direct order to Carlin barring the study from circulation within the agency. The email bared meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, ETC.
Next on March 16 in an email from Mr. Carlin to another NCEE economist, with a cc to Mr. McGartland and two other NCEE staffers, requesting that the study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. A note here. The inclusion of this and all other documents in the docket report is required by court decision.
March 17 in an email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, Mr. McGartland stated he will not forward the study. That email also states "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can 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.” (As an aside I have read most of the draft version that seems to have been smuggled out of the EPA. The new data Carlin found is devastating to the claim that CO2 is a dangerous polutant.
So with this email McGartland took the step of suppressing pertinent data to an open EPA docket in contravention of court rulings. But it didn’t stop there.
Eight minutes later McGartland sent a second email instructing Carlin to stop all climate work. In its place Carlin was assigned what only can be considered punishment work.
In addition to the EPA internal memos and draft study WUWT and the San Francisco Examiner's Thomas Fuller has an additional internal source (name withheld to protect the source from retribution).
Among others this source stated "I work at EPA and am unfortunate enough to actually know exactly what happened. Alan Carlin knows more about climate change science than most of the people on the EPA work group that wrote the endangerment proposal. The claim that he is simply an economist is a deep disservice to Alan and is patently false. Further, the work group refused to consider his arguments because they “don’t know how to weigh them against the IPCC report” – suggesting they won’t be able to evaluate the public comments either."
The source said further "Alan was muzzled. Others who tried to get the work group to evaluate his arguments ran into a brick wall. It is not that Alan’s comments were flawed. It is that the people who were in charge wanted him taken out of the process and his report “disappeared”. This was “politics” pure and simple."
So there you have it folks. EPA Docket rules and court rulings don’t matter.
Do you seriously believe that:
a) the IPCC *prohibited" any research after 2006?
b) that they have the authority to do so?
Or is it that they only incorporated peer reviewed published research from 2006 and earlier because they had to draw a line to complete their work?
Its over John. We are finally getting square with reality. Trade in your gas guzzler.
Yes I do.
Because they did.
Tell you what. Why don’t you go to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and find any research done in 2007.
Wait, better still. Why don’t you go to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and find the date of the most recient research in the report.
Then you can answer this. Since more recent research was done, why is it prohibited in the Report?
Hyperbole John. Where does it get you?
The IPCC continues to publish a host of other reports. So, of course, do many other scientific bodies around the world.
you're in a movement based on the absurd and a total lack of integrity
I don’t think you read the situation correctly at all.
It started with McCain and amnesty. The people said NO and he didn’t listen. Kennedy kept on writing his thousands of pages bill and said its about racism. The people, Dems and Reps yelled NO its about the RULE OF LAW. And McKennedy just kept on going.
Then there was Bush TARP, Congressional Auto bailout, and Bush auto loans. The people said NO and the politicians just kept on going.
Then Obama TARP and Obama Stimulus. The people said no so they did it anyway.
And there was Obama budget and Obama IMF and others.
All that brought us to this week and cap and tax. Obama did his part with the ABC syndicated telecast of health care at the White House. Legacy media obediently turned eyes else where. Lookie see health care. Lookie, lookie, see Michael Jackson. Lookie, lookie, lookie over there.
You could hear the hiss as the long political blades were pulled free to gleam naked in the sunlight. No stone or deal was left unturned.
There are some technical facts you should know. The Capitol (government) telephone system is basically its own Central Office. The Capitol switchboard is basically a reception service that can direct your call.
On Tuesday the Capitol switchboard was clogged. It crashed on Wednesday morning. Voice mails overflowed, email overflowed. The calls between 10 and 20 to one NO.
Between the telco central offices there are trunk circuits that handle literally thousands of calls. The one time I know that trunk circuits were overloaded is the California earth quake. Everyone tried to call LA at the same time.
On Wednesday afternoon, Thursday and Friday morning callers into Washington DC were most likely to get a trunk busy signal. The entire telephone system for the city was overloaded. And still Polosi / Obama WOULD NOT STOP.
In the last two years the Republicans have lost membership to Independent. Now from September to date the Democrats are no longer the majority party. Hemorrhaging Dem membership the majority party is now Independent.
There is no public support for cap and trade. Opposition runs 2/3 to 3/4 NO.
So VP when you say The flat-earthers are in retreat.
Those "flat earthers" you insult are the people of the United States. Their voice this week was NO. NO to heard on the most quiet, remote point on the Globe. Yet the Washington DC ears were deaf, they listened only to them selves.
The people may have lost this battle and yet they are NOT in retreat. The battle was lost to the brazen display of raw naked political power seen since FDR.
Just remember this.
George Washington lost every battle of the revolutionary war.
Remember the 300.
There is a price for the abuse of power.
So no, I'm not insulting the American people at all. And the flat earthers are definitely in retreat, albeit a noisy, chaotic one.
"There is a price for the abuse of power."
Here we do agree. But passing legislation to deal with serious problems is a power Congress actually has.
Your comments here are utterly fascinating. If you will notice I simply stated what IPCC did. I made no reference why nor did I ascribe a motive. I will note that there were numerous commentaries both within and without IPCC that the "cutoff" excluded the most recent and relevant research. I will also note that other organizations doing compilation work endeavor to include the latest research, often delaying publication in order to include important new work. You also note the cutoff so lets just leave that cutoff as convenient to the IPCC.
Which brings us right back to the point. So as we both agree based on the IPCC fourth assessment, the EPA record is incomplete. This makes the work of Alan Carlin highly appropriate and pertinent.
However as more has come to light this incident raises other much more disturbing questions.
For example, from insider whistle blower information we now know the work group defense for suppressing the Carlin documentation is they "refused to consider his arguments because they “don’t know how to weigh them against the IPCC report”" This is a huge red flag on many levels.
O First, the EPA and working group are clearly doing no actual assessment work that is required by EPA procedures and the Clean Air Act.
O Second if they are suppressing Carlin because they “don’t know how to weigh them against the IPCC report” then it will be necessary to suppress or ignore the public comments for that same reason.
O Third. The EPA mandate includes the consideration of a wide range of issues, including cost benefit as only one example. By adopting IPCC fourth the EPA has adopted the narrow focus of the IPCC to the exclusion of the EPA mandated obligations. The IPCC by charter and working definitions is limited to human caused warming to the exclusion of natural causes.
O Lastly and most damming. By suppressing Carlin the EPA effectively withheld the very report that documented all three of the above facts.
Feel free to get as cognitive as you wish. I don’t mind at all. By the why, the full phrase is cognitive dissonance.
Did you ignore your own caveat of affordable, or as Obama said a postage stamp a day? Of course you did. Just as obviously the people learned cap and tax is massive.
You also ignored the trunk busy that I mentioned. Soooo guess I have to lay it out chapter and verse for you.
Only once in the past have the long distance carrier trunks to a local telco been overloaded. That was after the 1994 Norhtridge earth quake. For four hours the ATT and Sprint trunks were overloaded. Research done after the quake found that the failed call rate to overload the system then was 166,000 calls per minute.
There are a lot more long distances carriers now and the trunk capacity is much larger. Last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday the local DC metro area trunks were trunk busy overloaded for 33 hours.
If we just ignore the present higher trunk capacity and use the smaller Northridge number, 166,000 calls per minute, that works out to 328 million failed call attempts to express an opinion to their congressman.
Now that’s not 328 million people. Most people tried more than once. A good average is 10 attempts. That’s still 32 million people calling.
Consider this.
TARP was proposed and people were outraged. They called.
Stimulus was proposed and people were more outraged. They called and took the Capital Hill telephone system down.
Then cap and tax was being rammed through. Obama did his health care distraction. The media embargoed the cap and tax new coverage. People called and took the DC trunks down.
That’s an increasingly louder voice. An advance not a retreat.
What were the results of the calls that did get through? The largest support for cap and tax was 20 to 1 NO. Some offices were 60 to 1 NO.
Worst was the attitude of many of the staff. When the caller asked to vote no, he got a lecture that he was wrong. When staff was asked has the representative read the bill? The answer was "Don’t worry the experts wrote it." When asked which experts the answer was "The scientists at the IPCC."
So the UN is writing a US law and the attitude of the staff is "Who the hell are you to call the representative."
To my knowledge Lyndon Baines Johnson was the single most adept person ever at the use of political power in the US House and Senate. When he supported a bill it passed. When he opposed a bill it failed. During the 1950's he defeated the Eisenhower equal right act and the Eisenhower voting rights act.
My earlier quote "There is a price for the abuse of power" refers to LBJ. In the 60's several leading Democrats approached LBJ and asked him to again help defeat the equal rights act and the voting rights act. LBJs answer was this.
Gentlemen. There is a price for the use of political power. The price for the country and the price for the party is too high.
With that LBJ pushed enough Democrat votes to back the Republicans which allowed both the equal right act and the voting rights act to pass.
That is a lesson that the Speaker of the House, the leader of the Senate, and President Obama has not learned.