quote:

---

Education: Ph.D., Physics, 1972, University of Michigan

---

quote:

---

As it turns out, the suppressed “study” was not actually a study at all but rather a report and series of comments compiled primarily by Alan Carlin, an economist within the agency’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). Carlin, who holds a B.S. in Physics from CalTech and a PhD in Economics from M.I.T. both from the late fifties and early sixties, has professed he is not a climate scientist but has been “working on climate change” for six years. He compiled the report as a response to the EPA’s endangerment draft which would open up regulation of CO2 as part of the Clean Air Act, concerned that the EPA’s reliance on the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignored more recent research that undermined the accuracy of the IPCC’s conclusions.

Reviewing solely the accusations of suppression from both the CEI and the supporting bloggers, you are given the impression of a rushed deadline and an intrepid lone voice of reason and knowledge amongst the cacophony within the politically driven bureaucracy of the EPA. In this scenario, Carlin deftly crafts an almost 100 page evisceration of the IPCC’s and thus the EPA’s findings in a mere 4 days, bringing to light an avalanche of new and unconsidered scientific knowledge, only to be rebuffed by his politically motivated superiors.

Reviewing the EPA’s response, the emails themselves, and the draft report in context, you are left with an impression of distinctly the opposite.

First there is the proposition that the version of Carlin’s report available from CEI was an “early draft”. Yet, the “March 16″ date on the footer of many of its pages is the same day as “the COB [close-of-business] deadline” Carlin references himself in his email on March 16 at 3:55 PM. The available report may be a draft, but it’s definitely not an early version of it.

As a late draft it stands to reason that Carlin was merely rushing to meet the EPA’s hastily determined deadline, a viable justification for it being a bit rough around the edges. Compiling nearly 100 pages in less than four days is no small task. Yet, the report itself states that it “in part builds on three previous reports (Carlin, 2007), Carlin (2007a), and Carlin (2008)”, a comment removed from a version of the report posted on the author’s own web site and replaced with a disclaimer to the reader that the comments “were prepared under severe time constraints”. So, rather than being written in four days, it appears the report was actually an ongoing work-in-progress for better than two years.

The EPA, in its response to the non-controversy, stated that Carlin had been granted numerous opportunities to have his views presented and heard by individuals both inside and outside of the agency, and Carlin readily acknowledges he hosted several seminars presenting opinions running counter to the findings of the IPCC, though he states these were not attended by members of the group generating the endangerment finding.

    “Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”
    - Adora Andy, EPA spokesperson

Considering the numerous previous report iterations and hosted seminars, it is reasonable to conclude those within the agency were already readily familiar with Carlin’s overall thoughts on the subject at hand and that much of the related material had been previously presented and considered. Carlin’s voice was being anything but quashed inside and outside of the agency.

As for the hasty deadline, the EPA finding had been in the works for over a year, having been started under the previous Bush administration, providing more than enough time to make any concerns known, even if the content of the finding had not been finalized.
http://scentofpine.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/epa-non-coverup/

---

quote:

---

For those of you willing to be honest enough to address this question, I would like to hear your views.

---

quote:

---

Neither you or your links have answered that question, which I expected.

---

quote:

---

International responsibility also means preserving our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need to reinvigorate the US-European partnership on climate change where we have so many common interests at stake. The US and Europe must lead together to encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.

I have introduced legislation that would require a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but that is just a start. We need a successor to Kyoto, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. New technologies hold great promise. We need to unleash the power and innovation of the marketplace in order to meet our environmental challenges. Right now safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy is a critical way both to improve the quality of our air and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.

That dependence, I am afraid, has become a vulnerability for both the US and Europe and a source of leverage for the oil and gas exporting autocracies. The US needs to wean itself off oil faster. Europe needs a comprehensive energy policy so that Russia's oil and gas monopolies cannot behave as agents of political influence.

The bottom line is that none of us can act as if our only concerns are within our own borders. We cannot define our national interests so narrowly that we fail to see how intimately our fate is bound up with that of the rest of humanity. There is such a thing as good international citizenship. If we wish to be models for others, we must be model citizens ourselves.

John McCain
March 18, 2008 http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_400.htm

---

quote:

---

If it would burst within a week, i would have it done now.

---

quote:

---

You know that, if you put the operation off for a year or so, you will not be in any danger.

---

quote:

---

We have a saying over here "The devil is in the details".

---

quote:

---

Your link shows 214 pages, grinch...seems like a thousand or so missing.

---

quote:

---

If you read it through, you are a better man than what we have in congress

---

[This message has been edited by Grinch (07-01-2009 05:59 PM).]

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (07-02-2009 08:22 PM).]

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hmmm...need qualifications to make comments valid, LR? Ok, then....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an opinion is going to be offered as 'expert' -- yes qualifications are required Mike.

You don't really want to get into a numbers game do you Mike?  Naw.  You know you'll lose.  You'd just like to see us earthy green types spend a lot of carbon footprint wasting our time doing research and posting information that you'll promptly ignore.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are right, Tom. There are many experts on both sides on this topic which raises an interesting point. How can something considered to be  so completely factual by the UN, Al Gore, and many governments have so many professional dissenters on the other side? Certainly the fact alone that there are so many on both sides would indicate that it is not as clear as some would have you believe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't interesting at all Mike.  Remeber all those doctors who used to tell us that smoking was healthy?  And then raised 'questions' for decades about the conclusive link between smoking and cancer?  Sure you do.

Oh yeah -- and those 'scientists' who used to say that we didn't know for sure that nuclear radiation was bad for us?  ROFL

You crack me up Mike.

You really do.  

---

quote:

---

Oh what the heck -- since this is all fun and games -- why not throw out a few links for you to ignore Mike... http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=74   http://www.petroretail.net/uploads/featurearticles/2006/npnMarketPulse/111506_mp2.asp[/UR    L]  

For what it's worth your Heartland Institute takes money from the Tobacco industry too to try to influence Tobacco policy.

You just keep cracking me up Mike.    

---

quote:

---

Have some more punchlines then Tom! [URL=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science   http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute  

---

quote:

---

Yep, I remember the doctors, LR, and John Wayne and his cigarette ads....what a jerk he was, the Duke. I also remember using chlordane to treat houses and asbestos to insulate schools. The point? I also remember the scientists in the eighties warning us of the impending global cooling, which has now been revised to global warming. Perhaps one day someone will say "Remember those idiot scientists and doomsayers who warned us of global warming?" Time will tell..

I only ignore you, LR, when you decide to head off in different paths to avoid addressing issues or responses, just as you have conveniently ignored the last posts I made here and poo-pooed the credentialed scientists and their testimonies. The Heartland Institute? What can the scientists who support them know. They accept funding from tobacco companies!   Hey, if you can't trash the message, trash the messenger, right? Your submitting a no smoking campaign thread into a  global warming/Kyoto protocol subject is about as clever as getting a waterboarding link into a pledge allegiance one. Perhaps you think that sarcasm and personal insults will smokescreen out the rest. Well, they always say the best defense is a good offense. The scientists for global warming are geniuses and those against are just amatures with lousy opinions who would probably condone waterboarding.

As for me, I can rest easy in my grave knowing I have brought laughter and amusement to you and your sidekick    I can live with that (until the global warming gets me        

---

quote:

---

Oh, and for the record, I have no friends at the Heartland Institute, do not know any ofthe 60 scientists listed who sent the letter to the Canadian PM, and know no one at the CATO Institute, who submitted the following....

STATEMENT of

Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute

On the Kyoto Protocol before the

Committee on Small Business
United States House of Representatives
Kyoto Protocol: "A useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty"

July 29, 1998

Thank you for soliciting my testimony on the science of climate change as it pertains to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Nearly ten years ago, I first testified on climate change in the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I argued that forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming were likely to be in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed to that date. Further, it would eventually be recognized that this more moderate climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial. I testified that the likely warming, based on the observed data, was between 1.0 and 1.5�C for doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

The preceding paragraph was excerpted verbatim from my last testimony before this House, on November 6, 1997. Since that last testimony, new scientific advances have been published in the refereed literature that have now proven the validity of this position. The key findings include:

    * Documentation that observed climate change is several times below the amount predicted by the climate models that served as the basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Hansen et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that observed changes are largely confined to winter in the very coldest continental airmasses of Siberia and northwestern North America (Balling et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the variation, or unpredictability, of regional temperatures has declined significantly on a global basis while there was no change in precipitation (Michaels et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that, in the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased (Lins and Slack, 1997),

    * Documentation that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below the most conservative United Nations� scenarios, because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation (Hansen et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the second most important human greenhouse enhancer�methane�is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years (Dlugokencky et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998), and

    * Documentation that the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will have no discernable impact on global climate within any reasonable policy timeframe (Wigley, 1998).

In toto, these findings lead inescapably to the conclusion that the magnitude and the threat from global warming is greatly diminished. They should provoke a re-examination of the need for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

In conclusion, the observed data on climate and recent emissions trends clearly indicate that the concept of "dangerous" interference in the climate system is outmoded within any reasonable horizon. This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.


I don't even know anyone atthe National Academy of Sciences...

From 1998 through 2007 the Oregon Petition ("Global Warming Petition"), sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, was signed by 17,200 scientists including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. It urged the US to reject the Kyoto Protocol.

---

quote:

---

Tom, if you bother to re-read the findings of all the scientists which the Cato report made public, you will see that they were made in 1998. Bush was not president and there was a Democrat in the White House. If you are going to yell BUSH and REPUBLICANS at least get your facts a little straighter  

Same goes for the 17,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, which covered 1998-2007.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I only ignore you, LR, when you decide to head off in different paths to avoid addressing issues or responses, just as you have conveniently ignored the last posts I made here and poo-pooed the credentialed scientists and their testimonies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Mike -- you're the one, by going back to the same old arguments that have been asked and answered that is being personally insulting and sarcastic by ignoring the factual data that's been provided.

You can say -- "but what about this study? or that scientist?" until the cows come home -- but it doesn't matter because dissent is already stipulated -- it is consensus of the Scientific community that is not impressed by the dissenting conclusions -- they aren't peer reviewed and the data isn't persuasive Mike -- 30 National Academy of Sciences around the globe have endorsed the IPCC report on Anthropogenic Global Warming -- until someone can put a dent in that with some conclusive data -- then they are just whistling Dixie.

In fact -- the credentialed scientists who oppose the IPCC report is so short it can be listed:
wiki/List of scientists opposing global warming

Now you may want to say that the IPCC report and the endorsement of it by the scientists of the world is a conspiracy like Micheal Crichton or many others would like to suggest -- Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

but, the problem with conspiracies is that someone always cracks -- like, say -- Scott McClellan in the cover-up of the outing of Valerie Plame; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312349,00.html  


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Heartland Institute? What can the scientists who support them know. They accept funding from tobacco companies!   Hey, if you can't trash the message, trash the messenger, right? Your submitting a no smoking campaign thread into a  global warming/Kyoto protocol subject is about as clever as getting a waterboarding link into a pledge allegiance one. Perhaps you think that sarcasm and personal insults will smokescreen out the rest. Well, they always say the best defense is a good offense. The scientists for global warming are geniuses and those against are just amatures with lousy opinions who would probably condone waterboarding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something in logic called comparison and analysis Mike.  We can, for instance -- look at two bodies in space and see how they may be different or similar. What we know about one thing can tell us something about the other.

We can also look at the similarities between the way big Tobacco and Big Oil are pursuing the disinformation campaigns -- using the same tactics and even the same organizations like --  Heartland -- You brought them into the thread Mike -- once again -- you want to pick up the marbles when it shoots you in the foot.

Now -- if you think that big oil money funding studies to attempt to debunk the IPCC report doesn't taint  that study then you're not a very good scientist -- or engineer.

But, all of this stuff is so easy to find on the web, and our previous conversations have lead me to wonder if you actually believe all the stuff you're posting here -- or if you're just trying to get a rise out of the audience -- or if you have a portfolio full of Exxon-Mobile and Phillip Morris stocks.  But since I know for a fact that you're you love to make a good joke -- I just assume you aren't serious -- so I'm still cracked up -- just as I used to be at those funny adults who used to think that I couldn't see them when they hid thier eyes from me and played peekaboo --


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also remember the scientists in the eighties warning us of the impending global cooling, which has now been revised to global warming. Perhaps one day someone will say "Remember those idiot scientists and doomsayers who warned us of global warming?" Time will tell..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you actually mean the seventies?
/wiki/Global_cooling

But it wasn't the scientific community -- as there was no consensus -- there were a few indidividual reports that the media distorted out of proportion -- particularly Newsweek.  But, the Academy of Sciences clearly stated they didn't know enough at that time to even form a consensus -- but instead reccomended the issue needed to be studied.

And in recent posts - you even want to go back to Al Gore's house vs. Bush's house -- even though the source you provided clearly outlined Gore's position of carbon neutrality -- it doesn't matter if he uses a billion killowatt hours per month Mike if he isn't producing any carbon.

But, let's once again assume that Al Gore is hypocritical -- it doesn't change the facts of global warming any more than Henry Hyde's or Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs meant that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky.

And, in regards to post 36 -- do you want to argue whether Anthropogenic Global Warming exists -- as John and now apparently Pete do -- or do you want to talk about the efficacy of Kyoto?  They are two different issues.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just the kind of garbage all global warming harpies espouse as the argument to cut of discussion. Well, it don't work. There are also plenty of highly respected scientists who disagree. No, the discussion and decision is far from over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus    

---

quote:

---

We can also look at the similarities between the way big Tobacco and Big Oil are pursuing the disinformation campaigns -- using the same tactics and even the same organizations like --  Heartland -- You brought them into the thread Mike -- once again -- you want to pick up the marbles when it shoots you in the foot.
Now -- if you think that big oil money funding studies to attempt to debunk the IPCC report doesn't taint  that study then you're not a very good scientist -- or engineer.

LR, you can use the big oil and big tobacco fundings to make Heartland and the Cato Instututes prejudiced if you wish, and you may even be partially right, but that has little to do with the reports, unless you are claiming that the 500 scientists Heartland quoted, the 17000 Cato quoted and the 60 that sent their letter and recommendations to the Canadian PM all belong to those institutions.....which they don't. The only thing Heartland and Cato did was to take this information from acclaimed scientists with impeccable credentials and make them public, something the mainstream media failed (call it refused) to do. You label it disinformation so I must assume that you consider it some conspiracy these 18000 scientists are all banded together to fool the public with.

And, in regards to post 36 -- do you want to argue whether Anthropogenic Global Warming exists -- as John and now apparently Pete do -- or do you want to talk about the efficacy of Kyoto?  They are two different issues.

Glad you mentioned that. They are definitely two different issues. Global warming certainly exists. It has existed since the beginning of time, taking turns with global cooling. The question is (1) is the man-made protion of it significant and (2) would the Kyoto protocol help to curb it?  I have addressed this in several replies throughout the thread to point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the subject matter at hand...

Reply 0.......whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Reply 3.......Tom, I wasn't referring to liberal/conservatives but rather the Kyoto treaty.

Reply 7........Tomtoo, I could go on for hours about the Kyoto protocol but let me just say that (1) it hurts the economy of the developed nations (2) it stunts growth of the undeveloped nations (3) it causes the undeveloped nations to demand compensation from the developed ones for not allowing them to develop (4) it has not been working (5) it tries to solve a non-problem, according to many hundreds of scientists around the world. That's enough for starters....

Reply 14...... the document agreed upon in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December is a flawed one: it has none of the drastic emissions curbs scientists say are essential in averting climate chaos.  Given the long list of caveats, it is no wonder that Greenpeace's Bill Hare labels the Kyoto outcome a 'tragedy and a farce'.

Reply 22.......Yet, this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto, and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.

Reply 36.......This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.

After all of those references I made, you now ask me if I want to argue global warming or Kyoto? Perhaps it's you who have been doing the ignoring?    The IPCC links you just offered concern global warming only and nothing to do with Kyoto at all.

---

quote:

---

Nope not ignoring -- just clarifying.

Post 0 you only focus on Kyoto.

Post 15 John goes off into Anthropogenic Climate Change.

I answer him.

You answer me.

Then you switch back to Kyoto.

So -- you've clarified -- you want to talk about both.  I've only talked about anthropogenic climate change and haven't made any arguments pro or con on Kyoto.  - Which is why I don't understand 36.

And, if you choose not to ignore the information -- you'll see that Heartland is actively involved with the Oil and Tobacco industry and has board members from the said same, Mike -- the same companies that fund those scientists -- yep -- that is a conspiracy -- but like all conspiracies it's hard to keep it a secret -- except the mainstream media just doesn't cover it do they?  

It's a good damn thing Al Gore invented the internets!  

This enables you to look further into those '18,000' "scientists" -- the 60 and the 500 -- and see that it isn't above board.

The nature of science is that there will always be variance in opinion -- and there will be a consensus -- but the process is tainted when -- let's say the mainstream media blows a single report out of proportion like Rasool's and Mitchell's because it sells newspapers -- or when the Oil companies fund 'studies' to throw sand in the public's face -- sometimes it reminds me a little of Baghdad Bob -- which is again why I laugh.

It's all amazingly simply laid out at Wiki Mike -- maybe you should write to those 18,000 'scientists' and tell them to add thier names to the list -- they're just scientists after all -- they probably don't know about wikipedia?

---

quote:

---

he same companies that fund those scientists -- yep -- that is a conspiracy

So you are saying, then, that either Heartland or the oil companies are funding those nearly 20,000 scientists? Iassume you can provide another link for that?

but the process is tainted when -- let's say the mainstream media blows a single report out of proportion

Now I'm the one who is laughing....no, guffawing and rolling on the floor holding my sides. That's exactly what  the mainstream media has been doing for the past 7 years. If you don't believe me, ask Dan Rather.

maybe you should write to those 18,000 'scientists' and tell them to add thier names to the list -- they're just scientists after all -- they probably don't know about wikipedia?

A typical response, sadly. If you can't refute them, insult and trash them. That's what the left does. They ignore a man's 30 year record in service and, if they don't want him to be a judge, they find a point to trash him, ignoring his record. If General Petrakas (sp) gives opinions they don't want to hear, they ignore his sterling military record for three decades and try to discredit and trash him.  These 18,000 scientist who hold many of the absolute top positions in the scientific world, who have spent their lives in scientific research and matters, if they don't share the same opinions as what you want to hear, insult and trash them. Yes, they are "just scientists", LR. You have the right to wonder if they know Wikipedia exists....why not?

You bring up the Heartland funding again as if that's the key issue which makes everything suspect. I'd like to see the stock holdings of Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Kennedy and the boys to see how much stock they hold in those same oil and tobacco companies.....so what's the point?

If I hate my neighbor and I see him robbing a bank and turn him in, does my dislike of him taint the charge? Will you be the defense attorney who says "You just turned him in because you don't like him, right?" Maybe I did but that doesn't invalidate the action.  You can blast Heartland for their funding all you want and you can insult  the integrity and intelligence of 18000 scientists if you wish....I wouldn't expect any less - or more.

---

quote:

---

it doesn't matter if he uses a billion killowatt hours per month Mike if he isn't producing any carbon.....referring to Gore.

Lr. you have outdone yourself. That is the most incredible statement I;ve seen coming from your golden fingers. The lengths you go to to justify actions by the Gores and Edwards of your world are remarkable.

In an Inconvenient Truth Gore implores the world to cut back on energy use. I didn't hear of him mentioning use all of the energy you want as long as you don't have a carbon footprint.  Why doesn't Gore have a carbon footprint? Simple - he buys carbon-offsets, those handy little items which allow you to use up as much energy and produce as much carbon as you want as long as you donate to companies that are working to reduce carbon in the world. Putting aside the fact that the company he bought the carbon-offsets from he has a major share in which means he was basically paying himself, let me ask you this. Did the carbon-offsets he bought eliminate the carbon that he produced? Did it just up and vanish? Now you see it, now you don't?

I'm sure Gore would be happy to know you have given him your approval  to use a billion per month as long as he doesn't produce carbon.  Problem is, you can't do that without producing carbon and paying yourself for a free pass makes no difference to the environment you claim to be trying to protect.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe the solution to pollution is going to be an appeal to self-sacrifice, but rather, a leveraging of self-interest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ding ding ding ding ding ding -- Ron wins the green star... as it were....

Here again -- the Right wants to paint us into picturing the choices between status quo oil burning (think BP's 'green' advertising featuring a woman who says she doesn't want to give up her car) and becoming luddites.  Granted - we even have a luddite or two at this pub.

Amy illustrates quite well how well the big oil money campaign to just confuse is working -- somehow I don't think she's more concerned about Beyonce's arm pits or Paris Hilton's mating habits -- yet -- the entire scope of trying to understand the science is just overwhelming.

As I've pointed out numerous times before -- the solution to science problems is science.  Unfortunately -- policy becomes embroiled in the issue.  And, when there is a buck to be made -- and a market protected -- it's better to obfuscate and stall and make sure that all the oil gets pumped out of the ground and sold -- Ron -- you really, really, don't believe there aren't any evil people involved here do you?

And Mike -- if you really care about getting to the truth about the Oregon Petition -- I've left the cookie crumbs for you to follow.

Here are your questions for study;

How many of the signatories are climatologists or even in the physical sciences?

What is the National Academy of Science's position on the Oregon Petition?

Who is the principle author of the OP?  What are his credentials?

Who are the secondary authors? What institute are they tied to?  

What oil company do they work for?

Oops -- that last one just slipped out.

Now -- everyone dream tonite of a bacteria that belches hydrogen.....and what do we get when we burn hydrogen?  Ah -- yes -- water -- without carbon......

---

quote:

---

So why all the resistance? Why all the argument? Whether or not "climate change" is the issue, why wouldn't we want clean, renewable sources of energy?

Well said, hush. The question is whether the Kyoto Protocol is the answer or even necessary.

LR, well, you're consistent. Instead of answering questions you throw out links like confetti and bread crumbs and say go find the answers...thanks anyway.

---

quote:

---

    Edward Hooper, a former BBC correspondent, has advanced the "contaminated polio vaccine" theory for the origins of HIV and AIDS. In his exhaustively researched book, The River[1], Hooper advances the theory that HIV1 (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a mutation or variant of, or the result of animal-to-human transmission of, SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), a virus found in the chimpanzee. He lays blame on Dr. Hilary Koprowski, a virologist working for Philadelphia's Wistar Research Institute, who allegedly used hastily concocted chimpanzee kidney culture medium from a Stanleyville research laboratory to create millions of doses of oral polio vaccine for a mass vaccination program in the Belgian colony of the Belgian Congo. The experimental vaccine was administered to millions of natives in the Belgian Congo without their informed consent. The research was partially funded by the U.S. Government. Hooper points out inconsistencies in what Koprowski and his team said they did, and what workers in Koprowski's laboratories and at his chimpanzee research camp said was done. He describes Koprowski's single-minded drive to beat Drs. Salk and Sabin in developing the first commercially-available polio vaccine, and posits that this was a factor in the use of the contaminated vaccine.

    The contaminated polio vaccine theory was supported by the influential evolutionary biologist and Oxford University professor, W. D. Hamilton, who died as a result of contracting malaria on one of his trips to Africa to seek proof for the theory. On the other hand, other scientists, such as University of Arizona professor Michael Worobey, have conducted research that contradicts the theory. [2]

    The 2004 Emmy-nominated documentary film, The Origin of AIDS[3], directed by Peter Chappell and Catherine Peix, traces the evidence laid out by Hooper, and shows interviews with Dr. Koprowski that seemed to be contradictory with the interviews with local laboratory workers who had worked at the Stanleyville research laboratory. [4]

    * In an interview by Time magazine with Nobel Peace Prize laureate and environmental activist Wangari Maathai, it was alleged that Maathai had said that "AIDS is a biological weapon manufactured by the developed world to wipe out the black race".[5] Maathai subsequently rejected that in a written statement issued in December 2004: "I neither say nor believe that the virus was developed by white people or white powers in order to destroy the African people. Such views are wicked and destructive." [6]

    * Jakob Segal, a former biology professor at Humboldt University, proposed that HIV was engineered at a U.S. military laboratory at Fort Detrick, by splicing together two other viruses, Visna and HTLV-1. According to his theory, the new virus, created between 1977 and 1978, was tested on prison inmates who had volunteered for the experiment in exchange for early release. He further suggested that it was through these prisoners that the virus was spread to the population at large. He has been accused, however, by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin as having been disseminating disinformation on behalf of the Soviet Union. [7]

    * Dr. Alan Cantwell, author of AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic and Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot, says that HIV is a genetically modified organism developed by U.S. Government scientists, and that it was introduced into the population through Hepatitis B experiments performed on gay and bisexual men between 1978–1981 in major U.S. cities. Cantwell claims that these experiments were directed by Dr. Wolf Szmuness, and that there was an ongoing government cover-up of the origins of the AIDS epidemic. Similar theories have been advanced by Dr. Robert B. Strecker, Matilde Krim and by Milton William Cooper.

    * Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, author of Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola. Nature, Accident or Intentional? and Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, has advanced the theory that the AIDS virus was engineered by such U.S. Government defense contractors as Litton Bionetics for the purposes of bio-warfare and "population control."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy_theories

---

quote:

---

Maybe you missed this fellow... James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist

---

quote:

---

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.  http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

---

quote:

---

It seems that the Democrats and Obama learned well the potential for advancement of their agenda by manufactured crises

---

quote:

---

The U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions is a call to our nation's leaders to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. The statement is endorsed by more than 1,700 scientists and economists with expertise relevant to our understanding of the scientific and economic dimensions of climate change, its impacts, and solutions. This marks the first time leading U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.

This unprecedented list of signatories includes six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 30 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 10 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 10 recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship, and more than 100 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

The letter, with the full complement of signatures, will be delivered to every member of Congress in spring 2008, as both chambers prepare for critical votes on national climate policy. In addition, several scientists and economists will personally delivered the letter and meet with their senators and staff to discuss the importance of taking action to reduce emissions while growing our economy.

U.S. Scientists and Economists’
Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scient ists-and-economists.html

Quotes From Scientist and Economist Endorsers

"Recent events have demonstrated the world’s
vulnerability to climate-related natural disasters. Further delaying action on climate change may make these events even more catastrophic in the future."
R o b e r t E . D i ck i n s o n
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology; Member, National Academy
of Sciences; Member, National Academy of Engineering

"The United States worked with other nations to take on the ozone threat; so, too, must we lead the international effort to reduce heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change."
-Mario J . Molina
Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Center for Atmospheric Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego; Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Co-organizer, U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"Economists now join climate scientists in a unified call for action to address the causes of climate change. Failure to act now is the most risky and most expensive thing we could do."
- James J . McCarthy
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, MA; Co-chair, Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Lead Author, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; President, American Association for the Advancement of Science;
Co-organizer, U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"The economic and social costs of global warming could be huge. We need to act now to limit them."
- Eric Maskin
Albert O. Hirschman Professor of Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ; Nobel Prize Winner in Economics; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Kempe Award in Environmental Economics

"Physicists tend to be supercritical of strong conclusions, but the data on global warming now indicate the conclusions are not nearly strong enough."
- Leon M. Lederman
Director Emeritus, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL; Nobel Prize Winner in Physics; National Medal of Science Recipient; Member, National Academy of Sciences

"The new energy economy is upon us, and the states are already playing a key role in the research, development, and deployment process that will simultaneously stimulate growth and achieve our climate goals."
- Daniel Kammen
Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy; Professor, Energy and Resources Group, Goldman School of Public Policy and Department of Nuclear Engineering; Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment; Founding Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley

"Evidence is mounting from many different scientific disciplines that Earth’s natural systems are already undergoing rapid change. We need to act now to reduce heat-trapping gas emissions, for the sake of our children and the other species with whom
we share this planet."
- Pamela A. Matson
Dean, School of Earth Sciences and Goldman Professor of Environmental Studies, Stanford University, CA; Member, National Academy of Sciences; MacArthur Fellow; Past President, Ecological Society of America

"I think the world has never faced a problem like global warming and the enormous environmental destruction it can cause. The impacts will be felt most severely by poor people around the world, which in turn will have serious repercussions for all of us."
- Edward L. Miles
Virginia & Prentice Bloedel Professor of Marine & Public Affairs, Institute for Marine Studies; Senior Fellow, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington; Lead Author, Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Member, National Academy of Sciences

"The message from California to federal policy makers is encouraging—we know that a combination of political will and smart policies that promote energy conservation and technological innovation can cost-effectively reduce global warming emissions."
- Michael Hanemann
Chancellor’s Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Director, California Climate Change Center

"Adaptation for both human and natural ecosystems will likely be more difficult and costly for a faster rate of warming than for slower rates. Delaying action is an extremely risky path to continue on."
- Stephen H. Schneider
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, CA; Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy; Co-director, Interdisciplinary Program in Environmental Resources; Member, National Academy of Sciences; MacArthur Fellow; Lead Author, Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Coordinating Lead Author of the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports of the IPCC. Co-organizer, U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"The future of our society depends on effectively managing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Public and private research and development support for these efforts will allow us to transition to a carbon-neutral energy system that improves both environmental quality and economic growth."
- Gordon Rausser
Robert Gordon Sproul Distinguished Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, University of California, Berkeley; Co-founder and former Director, LECG, a global expert services company; Former chief economist of the U.S. Agency for International Development

"Preventing dangerous climate change is a great investment. It will cost between one and two percent of GDP, and the benefits will be between 10 and 20 percent. That’s a return of 10 to 1—attractive even to a venture capitalist."
- Geoffrey Heal
Paul Garret Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility, Columbia Business School, New York, NY; Co-organizer, U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"The consequences of global climate change constitute one of the most serious threats facing humanity. While the poor and the impoverished will suffer the most, the potential for catastrophic climate change that can adversely affect the habitability of the
entire planet is quite real."
- Jagadish Shukla
Distinguished University Professor of Earth Sciences and Global Change, and Chair, Climate Dynamics Program, George Mason University, VA; President, Institute of Global Environment and Society; Lead Author, Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"The carbon dioxide we emit today will remain in the atmosphere for well more than a century, thus adding inexorably to the warming of the planet."
J e r ry Ma h lma n
Senior Science Fellow, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO; Former Director, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

"Investing now in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies not only will create new business opportunities, but is also likely to be less expensive than a crash program to implement these solutions at a future date, when it will be more difficult to limit climate impacts."
A n t h o n y C . F i s h e r
Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Agricultural and
Resource Economics Department, University of California, Berkeley

---

[This message has been edited by Bob K (07-04-2009 05:06 PM).]

quote:

---

Mike:

Really, Bob? You are comparing the evidence presented of man-made global warming to a poll then? The question begged to be asked is..if there is no prediction of x amount in y amount of time, then how do you come up with the statement of "The time is now"? With all due respect, your last response is simply a dance to avoid the questions.

---

quote:

---

[H]ow do you come up with the statement of "The time is now"?

[/i]

     Looking at population growth figures, thinking about fresh water availability and food availability and thinking about what happens with non-populations we've studied under similar conditions.  While Malthus may have had the exact data wrong, I suspect that he had some of the basic ideas right, and growth of population against the diminishing availability of resources does appear to suggest a crunch point approaching.  Do the research and do the graphing yourself.  Huan Yi's pithy comment below is not well developed.  It is also very suggestive.

     I don't know if that's enough of an answer to your question.  I suspect it's not enough to convince you.  Waiting for divine intervention, unless it's taking charge and making a difference ourselves, seems to be something that we should not count on.  Indeed, taking charge and doing something wholeheartedly, happily, and compassionately is something that approaches the miraculous from where I sit today.
[quote]
If there is no valid prediction, how does Obama claim that THIS is the time to raise taxes on an already suffering economy for the sake of the planet? And I would appreciate an answer to the other questions some time. Will what America cuts back on offset what Russia, China, India, etc won't? Would your answer be that every little bit helps? Americans are going to go further into debt at a critical point because every little bit helps?

---

quote:

---

Normally when one declares something dangerous one uses percentages and amounts to warn and verify.

---

quote:

---

Also, there was absolutely no doubt he had cancer while, in this case, there is a huge amount of doubt regarding man-made global warming and the supposed disasterous effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, causing the deaths of millions and eventual destruction of the planet.

---

quote:

---

If we ever get through this economic situation onto firmer ground, I will agree with you and join you in your chant of WHEN?

---

quote:

---

Looking at population growth figures, thinking about fresh water availability and food availability and thinking about what happens with non-[human] human populations we've studied under similar conditions.  While Malthus may have had the exact data wrong, I suspect that he had some of the basic ideas right, and growth of population against the diminishing availability of resources does appear to suggest a crunch point approaching.  Do the research and do the graphing yourself.

---

quote:

---

     As to your immediately preceding posting, I can just imagine the warmth and approval with which you'd greet such a proposal, and with which you'd welcome it, and with which you'd support it every step of the way.

     That's one of the reasons.

     I can hardly imagine getting you to research a heat pump or a solar array.  Perhaps you're willing to read the posting that LR offered on the Solar Thread?

     Check out some of the technology that's available for helping solve some of these problems without dumping billions not only into nuclear power plants, but into the pockets of the deregulated utilities who are charging you to build them.  Lots of potential downside to these plants.

---