Global Warming Removed from EPA Report

I have mentioned before that I am not convinced that global warming is a major concern, or at least that it is a man made concern.

I notice that the media is feeding on this as if it is the conservatives trying to hide an impending environmental catastrophe. I see it as someone finally seeing the truth which is that there is no diffinitive proof of global warming, and they are deleting a very troublesome issue with no backing, that was borne in politics to begin with.

Here is the article.

The White House has removed references to problems caused by global warming from next week's Environmental Protection Agency report on the state of the environment. The report was commissioned in 2001 by EPA head Christie Whitman, who is leaving her federal job this month. The original climate information, along with the changes ordered by the White House, were slipped to the New York Times by a former EPA official. Two other agency officials say the documents are authentic.
In the draft returned to the EPA by the White House, the sentence, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was cut and replaced with, "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future."

The eliminated material refers to many studies that conclude that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tail-pipe emissions and can threaten health and ecosystems. A 2001 climate report by the National Research Council about the human contribution to global warming was removed, as well as references to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures have risen sharply in the last 10 years, compared with the last 1,000 years. In place of this, the administration added information from a study sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute that questions global warming.

www.unknowncountry.com...

If one spends some time with the writings of Isaac Newton while he was holed up during the Plague, you find a very palpable, logic-based argument for why the Earth, left to itself, would ultimately "cool down" to, one could speculate, an uninhabitable place.

I have never been able to accept the global warming theory, not only because Isaac's very intelligent argument stuck in my craw, but because ithe global warming theory is based on infinitesimal amounts of temperature variations over what we must logically admit to be an extremely small time period, based on SEVERAL measurement devices which (due to their placement of measurement) cannot be calibrated to each other. And just the calibration issues (when considered in conjunction with the devices accuracy) could wipe out the whole theory!

I found a very good book about a decade ago (but published long before then) entitled "How to Lie with Statistics"...

this falls in that realm.

You both know where I stand on this global warming issue. I know I have posted this to death but I want to list it as its very probably the most unbiased research done on this subject to date.

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

If you've read it already, I hope you'll forgive the redundancy as I list it for information of others who may have just become aware of this subject and new members of ATS.

Thanks for the link!

That's what I'm talkin' bout.

Climatologist Debunks 'Alarmist' Claims of Global Warming

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Monday, July 14, 2003

WASHINGTON � Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels says fears of catastrophic global warming are scientifically unfounded and "alarmist." Any climate change that does occur would not affect Earth or its inhabitants in any significant way, he said.
"The science is settled in a very non-alarmist way," Michaels told CNSNews.com. He predicted that his message would not be well received by many in the climate debate.

"A non-alarmist way is politically very unpopular in Washington, D.C.," he said.


www.newsmax.com...

Just found this interesting article. Seems that Fred Singer is weighing in on this issue.
Singer Cool on Global Warming

Insight: When did you first get interested in the question of global warming as an example of bad science?

Fred Singer: My interest in the global-warming scare began about 1988 with the testimony of Jim Hansen (then head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) before Sen. Al Gore in a Senate hearing. I looked at his testimony and discovered some holes in it. I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal pointing out the weak points in the argument.

Q: What are some of the weak points about the global-warming argument?

A: The fact that they don't properly take into account the effects of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds will cool the climate rather than warm the climate. When you try to warm the ocean, I argued - and the argument is still sound - you evaporate more water and create more clouds and this reduces the amount of solar radiation. What you have is a kind of negative feedback which keeps the temperature from rising very much.

If it smells, tastes, feels, and looks like a HOAX, it is a hoax?



seekerof