Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics

Good!

 

If you want to see the future of US insanity in this area, look no further than the US Senate Environment and Public Works minority page:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f

Your tax dollars at work.

 

I think this was the key part of the article.

I don't know much about Sensenbrenner, but Issa and Barton are pieces of work. But I do not like the entirely political moving of regulation of carbon dioxide to the EPA. This was done partially to give CARB much greater powers, so it does represent California dictating our fuel economy standards and carbon dioxide policies instead of the federal government. Please note, I understand how dirty LAs air was, but it is still very dirty, and CARB has not done their job, so they have expanded to try to do other jobs poorly. Barton was instrumental in getting Mann to actually make his data available. Doing that is just good science, but Mann had refused. Part of his refusal might have been because he knew there were mistakes. One of the reviewers of the data said "Bad methods plus correct results is still bad science". This has been very political on both sides.

Peer review, not supression of papers. Publishing all the research so others can check the work. The previous republican administration was the first to acknowledge that AGW is real. The solutions should be done in the federal government.

 

The Prop 23 ad campaign was deceitful.
The environmental groups outspent the prop 23 supporters 2-1.
They bombarded the airways saying Texas oil companies want to pollute our air with smog and soot.One ad used a person with emphysema.
Not once was co2 ever mentioned.
Most Californians have no idea that AB32 involves co2 Cap and trade,and apparently ,the environmentalists want to keep it that way.

 

I can see why you feel threatened because its becoming obvious that there never was any "consensus" of scientists supporting the IPCC theory.
52 scientists who worked on the reports is what Gore calls consensus.
So disproving that lie is "insanity"?
I think anyone who cant look objectively at the opinions of 700 hundred scientists,must be brainwashed.

 

I think you're confusing the CARB waiver issue with Mass. v. EPA. EPA regulation of GHGs was not a political move. It was driven by statute (with prodding via lawsuits), and had nothing to do with CARB.

 

Really, you don't follow law too well then if you don't think the case was all about CARB versus the EPA. The parties suing the EPA were CARB states seeking power to regulate carbon dioxide. The supreme court's ruling plainly stated that they were not ruling on whether carbon dioxide caused global warming. In a 5-4 decision they ruled that these states had standing, even though they could not show damage. Scalia and Roberts in their separate dissents argued that they do not have standing, which is my opinion. They also concluded that the CAA was so broad that it could cover any tailpipe emission as pollution, so carbon dioxide is included. It did not tell the epa that they needed to regulate carbon dioxide, only that because they could under the CAA they needed better reasoning to not regulate it.

 

Mass v. EPA was not about states regulating CO2. States can and could always regulate CO2, with the exception of automobile standards unless a waiver was granted (which was the subject of Cal. v. EPA).

It is Mass. v. EPA which led to the endangerment finding, and that triggers various parts of the Act, including the proposed tailpipe standards and proposed PSD/title V tailoring rule.

Nothing in Cal. v. EPA or the waiver system would have compelled the EPA to regulate GHG.

 

Do you just not understand how these things are related or are you being consciously deceptive. The Mass vs EPA said states had standing in regulating any CAA pollutant. It was explicitly the key point of the supreme court decision on whether the state of Massachusetts have the right to demand carbon dioxide be regulated. This was necessary for the waiver. California would not have spent as much money on the court cases if it was simply to ask the EPA to look closer at the policies. Even the majority opinion shied away from looking at carbon dioxide as a damaging pollutant, only that the states had broad rights in regulating it. Read the opinions, arguments, and the parties arguments and you will find it was and is all about CARB.


http://www.ohioenvironmentallawblog...obama-orders-review-of-california-co2-waiver/

 

What is terribly frightening is the move by Republicans to use the investigative process to harass scientists. Apparently, opposing the science of climate change wins votes from a public that is scientifically illiterate after decades of neglect of science education. And talking honestly about climate change can lose an election.

This is reminiscent of the Catholic Church's silencing of Galileo.

As always, religion fights science at every turn, because people who learn to think critically will not be bamboozled by priests, rabbis, mullahs, etc.

Conversely, children brainwashed into religion and the magical thinking religion requires, will be unable to make rational decisions at election time.

First they'll silence the scientists, and then they'll repeal the freedom of religion and force everyone to become a fundamentalist Christian.

 

You have you analogy backwards.
Galileo was the skeptic and denier.
The AGW doomsters are the ones acting like religious fanatics.

 

Well, the newspaper title sounds juicy, but...it's a newspaper article. As this piece is primarily about, AGU, let's read what AGU says about it:

Inaccurate news reports misrepresent a climate-science initiative of the American Geophysical Union

Suggests that the aim here is for scientists to communicate better, the things that they do. Seems not particularly threatening, but suit yourselves.

OTOH, if you think that scientists should not be allowed to communicate in this way, I'd like to hear more about why.

 

Interesting read..

 

No, you are mistaken: Galileo was a scientist, gathering and interpreting evidence. The Church threatened to torture him if he did not shut up.

The Republicans (and a few yellow dog Democrats) are trying to silence the climate scientists by threatening to investigate them. It's religion against science, just as it was back then.

Yes, Mojo, I know you deny that humans have anything to do with climate change, just like the Republicans and the fundamentalist Christians. I also know you hate the President with a white-hot passion. I do not know if you have religious convictions, but in the climate debate you are acting the part of the bulldog for Republicans and Big Oil.

 

Daniel,
Id appreciate it if you dont mischaracterize my position.
I believe AGW exists .
I dont think there is any proof that AGW will cause any damage to the Earths ecology,beyond what consequences there are from our current natural interglacial warming period.
As for Obama ,I voted and donated to his campaign.
(But Im not pleased that he lied about the public option and many other points)
BTW,Your mischaracterization of me of "hating" Obama is a damned lie.
My position on AGW has nothing to do with Obama.All Dem candidates support the AGW industrial complex.I still support all Democrats.I just refuse to support what I believe is a scientific scam.
You Daniel ,back a scheme lobbied for by Enron,Goldman Sachs and the nuclear industry.But you are too blind to realize it.
Much like you were blinded by Obama being "the most honest politician" who ever lived.
Your track record on being duped is rather poor .

 

You do realize that there was AGW research well before Enron don't you?? So far, the only sources I've seen from you are tabloid journalism and scetchy internet polls. As far as politicians, Obama is no worst then any other politician when it comes to transparency....the voting public seems to like to latch on to talking points vs actual policy (this seems to have been going on for over 30 years).

 

Do a little research .The AGW movement started with Margaret Thatcher ,who wanted to develop the UK's nuke industry.
She started the CRU.
Enron saw they could make a bundle and started lobbying Congress and donating to Greenpeace.
I used to think Kenny boy Lay was Bushs buddy.
Wrong.
Lay was Al Gores buddy and on the board of the (Kerry)Heinz foundation.
Ken Lay was behind Clinton Gore backing Kyoto and budgeting climate research.(over the years $70,000,000,000)
After Enron imploded, did the a-hole thief traders die as well?
No ,my speculation is they all migrated to Goldman ,(the next biggest group of thieves in the world)
So today we have Goldman Sachs and Exelon Nukes lobbying for Cap and Trade and donating to Obama.

 

Mojo,

I don't disagree that if there is a way to corrupt a system, people like Ken Lay will find a way to **** with the system. I also agree that a cap and trade system is a definitely inferior system to cut greenhouse gases. I personally have voice my opinion here over and over again in favour of a transparent carbon tax.

I am afraid however your feelings about the economics of the potential solutions are clouding your judgement on the problem however. I don't know how any rational thinking human can feel that by adding a minimum of 1/3 to the CO2 load as a percentage, and adding hundreds of millions of tons (if not billions) of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (adding to the insulation of the atmosphere) and knowing that the effect has a long lag time between emission and effect isn't going to have demonstrable, and quite serious effect. Even if you take the most conservative models as to what climate change will result in, models that the vast majority of legitimate climate scientist believe in as a minimum effect, you are faced with a serious issue. Move up to the less conservative models and the consequences become truly scary. Move up to the most extreme models and they become catastrophic.

Like I said, I suggest you have let your fear of the solution cloud your judgement as to the depth of the problem.

Icarus

 

The AGW "movement" started a long time before that...

Global Warming Timeline