'inconvenient truth' EPA internal report suppressed

[kallsop]

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

Remember when the Bush White House was accused of being anti science? There's no need to feel nostalgic, just find the news the main stream media doesn't want you to read.

Hope 'n Change, except for everything that stayed the same.

Contrary views are unhelpful, so keep them to yourself.

 

[applecorped]

[unhelpful contrary view kept to self]

 

[D'rok]

What does the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission have to do with Bush or Obama?

 

[GreyICE]

What does the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission have to do with Bush or Obama?

Follow the MHaze to Kallsop logic

Polar Bears = Global Warming.
Global Warming = Fiction made up to support Democrats

Therefore Obama is clearly behind this, because he's seeking to cover up the Polar Bear = Global Warming link in the NWO's thought process.

Or... something. The OP didn't give me anything much to work with besides drivel.

 

[D'rok]

Follow the MHaze to Kallsop logic

Polar Bears = Global Warming.
Global Warming = Fiction made up to support Democrats

Therefore Obama is clearly behind this, because he's seeking to cover up the Polar Bear = Global Warming link in the NWO's thought process.

Or... something. The OP didn't give me anything much to work with besides drivel.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Thunder]

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

Remember when the Bush White House was accused of being anti science? There's no need to feel nostalgic, just find the news the main stream media doesn't want you to read.

Hope 'n Change, except for everything that stayed the same.

Contrary views are unhelpful, so keep them to yourself.

what's this got to do with Obama?

your irrational Obama-hating posts are getting kinda strange

 

[Cleon]

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

Note source: The Telegraph, a fairly well-known mainstream British newspaper.

find the news the main stream media doesn't want you to read.

Note claim, which seems slightly at odds with source of news story. It also smacks of conspiracy woo; Politics, Kevin Trudeau style.

 

[corplinx]

It wasn't a science report. It was a more of a cost-benefit type paper. Still silencing dissent within agencies like the EPA and Nasa was one of the big marching banners for the neo-Left. I don't expect anyone to change their mind.

When you have a president who backs increased ethanol subsidies and clean coal viewed as pro reason and science in the eyes of some, you are just dealing with their version of New Speak.

 

[Robster FCD]

The problem isn't that polar bear numbers are dropping, stable or growing right now, this season, or in recent past, but rather, whether we can expect if their source habitats, areas with positive population growth, will remain productive.

Their source habitats are very likely to be negatively changed by climate change over the next century. That is why they need to be labeled as endangered or threatened.

 

[elbe]

Hi, I'm having a bit of a hard time parsing this sentence. Could you clarify what it says?

When you have a president who backs increased ethanol subsidies and clean coal viewed as pro reason and science in the eyes of some, you are just dealing with their version of New Speak.

I'm seeing it as, what appears to be, three unrelated statements in one sentence:
"When you have a president who backs increased ethanol subsidies"
Is that a bad thing? Just wondering.

"and clean coal viewed as pro reason and science in the eyes of some"
Who are these "some" that view clean coal as pro reason and science? Does it include the president from the first part?

", you are just dealing with their version of New Speak."
This is the part I find most confounding. Who is this "their" you speak of? The EPA or NASA or the neo-left? And what does New Speak have to do with opinions about other, possibly unrelated, people?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

1. Yes, ethanol isn't a cleaner source.
2. "global warmists"?

 

[Thunder]

2. "global warmists"?

this is the silly term that nutcase conspiracy theorists use to call individuals who believe in man-made Global Warming.

 

[corplinx]

"When you have a president who backs increased ethanol subsidies"
Is that a bad thing? Just wondering.

Yes. Very bad. In fact, the UN released a report condemning food crop ethanol subsidies for its impact on global food prices/shortages right before this president voted in favor of increasing our existing corn ethanol subsidies.

"and clean coal viewed as pro reason and science in the eyes of some"
Who are these "some" that view clean coal as pro reason and science? Does it include the president from the first part?

Both Bush and Obama pay lip service to "clean coal". I was actually applauding when Joe Biden leveled with someone that it was bunk. However, he was forced to get back in lock step with his candidate's position.

Who is this "their" you speak of?

Do you remember the war on science? It was an overly dramatic phrase used to describe the policies of the last president. Instead of anti-global warming opinions being squelched. We back anti-scientific corn ethanol subsidies, "clean coal", and continue to downplay nuclear power.

There are many people who think the war on science ended when the new president came into office. However, there never was a "war" on science. Its too dramatic a word. However, science and reason are still not the basis for government policy (obviously).

 

[elbe]

Yes. Very bad. In fact, the UN released a report condemning food crop ethanol subsidies for its impact on global food prices/shortages right before this president voted in favor of increasing our existing corn ethanol subsidies.

Ok, I only have an ancillary interest in the energy issues and haven't been keeping fully up to date.

Both Bush and Obama pay lip service to "clean coal". I was actually applauding when Joe Biden leveled with someone that it was bunk. However, he was forced to get back in lock step with his candidate's position.

I agree with that, but your original sentence seemed to suggest the "some" was unrelated to the president.

Do you remember the war on science? It was an overly dramatic phrase used to describe the policies of the last president. Instead of anti-global warming opinions being squelched. We back anti-scientific corn ethanol subsidies, "clean coal", and continue to downplay nuclear power.

There are many people who think the war on science ended when the new president came into office. However, there never was a "war" on science. Its too dramatic a word. However, science and reason are still not the basis for government policy (obviously).

I agree that there should be more science in politics (especially on, you know, scientific issues), but the New Speak thing threw me off - and I'm still unsure of what you meant by bringing it up, I don't recall anyone mentioning the "war on science" prior. Or, is "global warming" new speak?

 

[lomiller]

The paper would have been an embarrassment, but not in the way some people would like to believe.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hilter and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….

 

[varwoche]

Taylor works for the Government of Nunavut in Canada. This has nothing to do with the EPA much less Obama. This is a bit of fiction that Kallsop tossed in to the mix.

 

[Beerina]

The problem isn't that polar bear numbers are dropping, stable or growing right now, this season, or in recent past, but rather, whether we can expect if their source habitats, areas with positive population growth, will remain productive.

Their source habitats are very likely to be negatively changed by climate change over the next century. That is why they need to be labeled as endangered or threatened.

As Julian Simon might say, "evidence"? He dealt in actual measurements of outcomes (as medical researchers might say). He was also skilled in scary predictions used as political tools, as he shot them down regularly.

If bears are threatened, then they should be losing population already. This is true. This is not happening. Therefore we revise our theory that it is about to start happening.

Now maybe it will, or maybe it won't. But how closely that parallels Jesus returning someday should, at the very lease, be a woo warning flag.

 

[lomiller]

If bears are threatened, then they should be losing population already.

They are:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618195804.htm

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released reports documenting the status of polar bears and Pacific walrus in Alaska. The reports confirm that polar bears in Alaska are declining and that Pacific walrus are under threat.

The deception you are falling for is basically that polar bears have not yet begun to decline in places where sea ice extents have not yet begun to recede. Ice in these areas, is however thinning significantly and extents are showing every sign they will recede significantly within the next few decades.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Christopher Booker^WP certainly has interesting opinions:

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".

 

[varwoche]

Taylor works for the Government of Nunavut in Canada. This has nothing to do with the EPA much less Obama. This is a bit of fiction that Kallsop tossed in to the mix.

Kallsop, you weren't completely hallucinating. You just got your inane citations confused.

There's a different story being touted by anti-science zealot James Inhofe concerning an economist who works for EPA. The economist pulled a report concerning climate science from his personal crevice, unsolicited, and now is whining because he's been told to put it back where it came from.