From Nomad’s link: “A grain of salt is required however, since Carlin is also the man who postulated that managing sea levels and solar radiation would be more effective and less expensive than regulating carbon dioxide emissions. We are admittedly not experts on these topics, but it seems a tad far-fetched that it is more expensive to tell a company to stop pumping so much CO2 into the air than it is to find a way to artificially control the amount of radiation that enters our planet’s atmosphere.”
Thanks, Nomad.
Did you see this story on CBSNews.com?
“For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: “Claims that this individual’s (Carlin) opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted.”
“The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he (Carlin) submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding.”
Amazing what you can find when you look at both sides, huh?
So, the EPA justifies the suppression of Carlin’s study because Carlin “is an individual who is not a scientist.” But Carlin is a 35-year veteran of the EPA and holds a B.S. in physics. Those are better credentials than Al Gore can produce. I’d look at the other side more often but the smoke & mirrors prevent me from doing so.
3,146 scientists are in the survey, a substantial number. The article notes that 97% of climatologists active in climate research (i.e., the most qualified, eh?) agree humans play a role.
The most skeptical are are petroleum geologists and meteorologists, 47% and 67%, respectively. That’s believing in humanity’s role, not in climate change as such.
One of the survey’s authors notes that meteorologists, despite what people think, are more aware of short-term phenomena rather than climate, which takes a long-term understanding.
I’d like to see your link; I’m rather skeptical of that. The data have been getting better and better to show how humans had an impact on climate. Maybe not completely, but significantly. Why not? We’ve radically altered large portions of the Earth’s surface, spread garbage and oil across the oceans – we’d be fools to think that the homeostatic balance of climate hasn’t shifted in some direction.
“3,146 scientists are in the survey, a substantial number. The article notes that 97% of climatologists active in climate research (i.e., the most qualified, eh?) agree humans play a role.” 3146 scientists is not alot. And your post doesn’t say how many are climatologists…Why don’t you just admit it is a science fad? Or are you saying scientists are above taking themselves too seriously? I’ll check your link though…
Yeah, I know about the University of Illinois, motive. Good try though. Maybe Doran will have the confidence to ask only climatologists and actually tell us how many there are in his sample…Maybe 10…?
Puppy: “And your post doesn’t say how many are climatologists”
Moot point, as far as you’re concerned, Puppy, because if all 3,146 of the scientists were climatologists, and 100% of them agreed that global warming is 100% caused by man, it still wouldn’t have any effect on you.
No more than contrary evidence would affect your belief in your religious mythology.
Anthony and Dr FooFoo,
What is more important is it wouldn’t matter if 50% of climatologists said global warming had no basis in fact, because you would automatically assume it was a dis-information plot by the Oil Companies. As Canuck, fennec, or parker??? pointed out scientists do not farm their data out for public consumption - their data is peer reviewed and analyzed in context. I find it telling that lettered climatologists do not advertise their opinions on global warming as robustly as wannabee-Earth-gurus like Al Gore do.
Puppy, whether their opinions are advertised by the scientists, or broadcast by the laymen, the important point is that they be acted upon.
Regarding whether or not it’s disinformation, it usually isn’t that difficult to follow the money. For example, just Google “oil companies global warming” and skim through the first page of results.
nomad2112 almost 15 years ago
http://www.switched.com/2009/07/02/epa-may-have-suppressed-anti-global-warming-study/
riley05 almost 15 years ago
From Nomad’s link: “A grain of salt is required however, since Carlin is also the man who postulated that managing sea levels and solar radiation would be more effective and less expensive than regulating carbon dioxide emissions. We are admittedly not experts on these topics, but it seems a tad far-fetched that it is more expensive to tell a company to stop pumping so much CO2 into the air than it is to find a way to artificially control the amount of radiation that enters our planet’s atmosphere.”
Thanks, Nomad.
Did you see this story on CBSNews.com?
“For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: “Claims that this individual’s (Carlin) opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted.”
“The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he (Carlin) submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding.”
Amazing what you can find when you look at both sides, huh?
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Good one, Anthony.
nomad2112 almost 15 years ago
So, the EPA justifies the suppression of Carlin’s study because Carlin “is an individual who is not a scientist.” But Carlin is a 35-year veteran of the EPA and holds a B.S. in physics. Those are better credentials than Al Gore can produce. I’d look at the other side more often but the smoke & mirrors prevent me from doing so.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
I get the feeling you missed the last paragraph of my previous post…
You want smoke and mirrors, Nomad? If you enter “oil company global warming” into Google, you get almost 10 million results. Here’s one of them:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
“Scientists’ Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion ”
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Also, nomad, you are using a false comparison of Carlin to Al Gore. That’s not correct. It is Carlin versus 98% of all climate scientists.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
How big was the sample?
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Here you go, churchill: http://tinyurl.com/85sean
3,146 scientists are in the survey, a substantial number. The article notes that 97% of climatologists active in climate research (i.e., the most qualified, eh?) agree humans play a role.
The most skeptical are are petroleum geologists and meteorologists, 47% and 67%, respectively. That’s believing in humanity’s role, not in climate change as such.
One of the survey’s authors notes that meteorologists, despite what people think, are more aware of short-term phenomena rather than climate, which takes a long-term understanding.
I’d like to see your link; I’m rather skeptical of that. The data have been getting better and better to show how humans had an impact on climate. Maybe not completely, but significantly. Why not? We’ve radically altered large portions of the Earth’s surface, spread garbage and oil across the oceans – we’d be fools to think that the homeostatic balance of climate hasn’t shifted in some direction.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
“3,146 scientists are in the survey, a substantial number. The article notes that 97% of climatologists active in climate research (i.e., the most qualified, eh?) agree humans play a role.” 3146 scientists is not alot. And your post doesn’t say how many are climatologists…Why don’t you just admit it is a science fad? Or are you saying scientists are above taking themselves too seriously? I’ll check your link though…
Yeah, I know about the University of Illinois, motive. Good try though. Maybe Doran will have the confidence to ask only climatologists and actually tell us how many there are in his sample…Maybe 10…?
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Puppy: “And your post doesn’t say how many are climatologists”
Moot point, as far as you’re concerned, Puppy, because if all 3,146 of the scientists were climatologists, and 100% of them agreed that global warming is 100% caused by man, it still wouldn’t have any effect on you.
No more than contrary evidence would affect your belief in your religious mythology.
Magnaut almost 15 years ago
Hey if you really believe this, ban sodapop and champagne those bubble are CO2
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
Anthony and Dr FooFoo, What is more important is it wouldn’t matter if 50% of climatologists said global warming had no basis in fact, because you would automatically assume it was a dis-information plot by the Oil Companies. As Canuck, fennec, or parker??? pointed out scientists do not farm their data out for public consumption - their data is peer reviewed and analyzed in context. I find it telling that lettered climatologists do not advertise their opinions on global warming as robustly as wannabee-Earth-gurus like Al Gore do.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Puppy, whether their opinions are advertised by the scientists, or broadcast by the laymen, the important point is that they be acted upon.
Regarding whether or not it’s disinformation, it usually isn’t that difficult to follow the money. For example, just Google “oil companies global warming” and skim through the first page of results.