Kinks emerge in feds’ consensus that global warming is real
June 26, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, News
Not everyone at the Environmental Protection Agency thinks it’s a good idea to rush ahead now and regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Two economic analysts with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics say the agency’s using outdated science and outside experts to justify its plans to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions instead of developing its own in-house expertise to assess global warming.
Had the agency used the most current research data, the researchers say EPA would have realized that:
- global temperatures are declining
- there’s no longer a scientific consensus that Atlantic hurricanes are intensifying due to global warming
- Greenland’s not losing its ice sheet as rapidly as earlier believed, and
- the current recession has reduced GHG emissions worldwide, a fact that has been ignored by international assessments on global warming.
The economists’ report was released by the conservative think tank, the Competitve Enterprise Institute as proof that the Obama administration is suppressing dissenting options on global warming. The CEI report is here.
The EPA staffer’s dissenting report is here.
Tags: Competitive Enterprise Institute, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
FINALLY!!!!
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
The reason Nobama and the democRATS are trying to force this issue down our throats, is the more studies which emerge to refute the global warming hoax, the less chance they have to pass the issue. And with many of their constituency being less erudite and prone to the media hype, they have to pass it quickly before they catch on.
Change we can believe in. – You voted for it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
You know I never believed in this whole global warming thing, but I still think that we as Americans should start to use the God given wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power now (not so much solar NOT EFFICIENT ENOUGH).
Not to combat “global climate change”. Have you noticed thay have changed the tune. But to get this country away from the hostage of oil.
Our security, our economic stability, and our jobs depend on changing the game, to our benefit. I do not believe the US government or “world governement” should dictate this or be the energy police, but we as a society must see the benefits. AND if it is green also. All the better!!
My next new vehicle is going to be an electric car. But a FASTTTT one!!!
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Socialism at it’s finest. Give the people a crisis to believe in and they will cling to the Messiah Obama.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
It is nice to see there are still some people (actually more and more) are no longer being led around by a corrupt media and manipulative administration and the likes of Al Gore.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
It is incredible…. I can not believe that people are so uneducated and ignorant in this country. Regardless of what experts say…. the fact is that we are killing our planet…. THAT IS A FACT… anything we can do to reduce the impact we create and have created will be good. It is not a matter of democrat, republican, Obama, or any other person trying to impose or socialiaze our country. It is matter of survival for our children and their children.
I aggree with you Joe… what matters is the benefits!
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Richard Morrison
The concerns raised in the USEPA NCEE draft document dated March 2009 do not refute the basic problem.
The document you quote clearly states that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase at accelerating rates. This fact is not contested by anybody; increased emissions will result in higher concentrations. Increased economic activity after this global recession will simply result in increased emissions.
All the data variations cited in this report are interesting but are irrelevant to the fundamental problem; thus these debating points are irrelevant to the ongoing policy debate.
The basic problem is exponential rates of increase in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by increased human emissions of greenhouse gases. Claims that new data equate to major new developments in the science is political hogwash.
All these data should be studied in great detail by many scientists to better refine understanding of how these variables are expressed in the extremely complicated thermodynamic system we call Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. The role of the Sun in these processes is also extremely important to better understand; you fail to note that the Sun has been extremely quiet for the past several years and this fact alone may explain any and all temperature variations.
But the fact remains; short-term temperature variations do NOT refute the overall findings that human activity has caused and continues to cause a significant increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the upper atmosphere and that human activity has had and will continue to have a demonstrated effect on regional and global climate patterns.
Your spin is intellectually dishonest and reflects profound ignorance of the forces that actually control our climate. As you have shown this draft report provides fodder for interesting political debate; similar to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
But the harsh reality; the inconvenient truth, is that while the data and the IPCC reports may be three years old, the science is NOT out of date. The laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed nor should they be expected to conform to political litmus tests.
Frankly I expect better work from an institution that claims to support competitive enterprise. Your spin plays to ignorance rather than enlightenment.
Before you write another word on climate change policy you should finish a couple of graduate level courses on thermodynamics, physical oceanography and environmental chemistry. After you ace the final exams then you might have sufficient understanding of the problem we face. Then you can look in the mirror and have an honest debate over whether your new knowledge conforms to your political ideology.
David E. Bruderly PE
920 SW 57th Drive
Gainesville Fl 32607-3838
July 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I will accept that in the last 50+ years, the data does show that the earth has gotten approx 1 degree warmer. And I am sure that many of the people that are sounding the alarm on global warming are very sincere in their concerns, but IF you accept the world history from our “enlightened” group, the world is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
The data being pushed upon us is at best 100 years old, and much of that is questionable. So our data pool is less than .0000001%. The best sicence in the world cannot overcome a statical population sample that is that small. The “100 years of global warming data” can be nothing more than a natural cycle of the earth or a blip in the weather pattern, or actually global warming. It is not possible to make any definative statement.
We also have seen in the last 2 years a cooling of the global weather. Does that mean another Ice Age is now comming?
I do not think that climate change (as it is now being called) is anything more than a way to pannic the people into giving up more of their freedom to the government (U.S. or a World Government).
Now having said this, I do believe we should take care of our planet. We are only care-takers
of this world. We should recycle. Use energy wisely. Clean up our world. But do it in ways that are not a burden to the people (taxpayers), or to the economy.
I know of what I speak. I have owned a successful manufacturing company for 15 years. Our employees are well paid. Have health and life insurance. Have a bonus program and paid holidays and vacation. Our company is very “clean” manufacturing, oh and by the way did I mention that we manufacture 98% of our production from GARBAGE. We recycle over 1MM pounds a month of scrap plastic and manufacture a product that replaces wood (trees) for many industrial and retail applications. We have recycled almost 1/4 BILLION POUNDS OF GARBAGE PLASTIC, AND SAVED OVER 1MM ACRES OF FOREST IN THE PROCESS. And the government has been little to no help. I have paid however quite a bit of taxes. Typically being green is also cheaper. So we don’t need the global police or the federal government to save our planet. All we need is a few smart people to build a better mouse trap, and then let the capitalistic society make the change for the better.
And never give up our God given freedom for the promise (from any Government) of a better tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I pollute therefore I am.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
First of all, do no harm. Think about our children and our children’s children. Do we aim to leave a planet full of garbage as inheritance?
February 4th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
David…. your lengthy blog entry seems well thought out and I would like to take your word for it if I hadn’t known about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.