[luchabee]

Yes, certainly unqualified:

Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA’s economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor’s degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said. The co-author of the report, John Davidson, is an environmental scientist in the economics office who holds a doctorate in physics. Davidson also joined the program in 1983.

Global warming is a new religion.

[luchabee]

Yes, certainly unqualified:

Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA’s economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor’s degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said. The co-author of the report, John Davidson, is an environmental scientist in the economics office who holds a doctorate in physics. Davidson also joined the program in 1983.

Global warming is a new religion.

[luchabee]

Yes, certainly unqualified:

Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA’s economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor’s degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said. The co-author of the report, John Davidson, is an environmental scientist in the economics office who holds a doctorate in physics. Davidson also joined the program in 1983.

Global warming is a new religion.

[luchabee]

Yes, certainly unqualified:

Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA’s economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor’s degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said. The co-author of the report, John Davidson, is an environmental scientist in the economics office who holds a doctorate in physics. Davidson also joined the program in 1983.

Global warming is a new religion.

[luchabee]

Yes, certainly unqualified:

Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA’s economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor’s degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said. The co-author of the report, John Davidson, is an environmental scientist in the economics office who holds a doctorate in physics. Davidson also joined the program in 1983.

Global warming is a new religion.

[luchabee]

Sure, an economist with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT who works for the ENVIRONMENTAL protection agency would be unable to grasp the “hard science” of global warming.

Al Gore gets it, of course, but he dropped out of law school and grad school and has made millions and will make millions if this B.S. continues.

I’ll guess that in about 10 years no one will be talking about global warming. It will be up there with the breast implant scare.

Of course, this attack against this director is not relevant to these findings in the report:

Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.

Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.

The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”

Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.

Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.

Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Why-did-the-EPA-smother-a-scientific-report-that-questioned-global-warming

[luchabee]

Sure, an economist with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT who works for the ENVIRONMENTAL protection agency would be unable to grasp the “hard science” of global warming.

Al Gore gets it, of course, but he dropped out of law school and grad school and has made millions and will make millions if this B.S. continues.

I’ll guess that in about 10 years no one will be talking about global warming. It will be up there with the breast implant scare.

Of course, this attack against this director is not relevant to these findings in the report:

Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.

Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.

The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”

Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.

Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.

Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Why-did-the-EPA-smother-a-scientific-report-that-questioned-global-warming

[luchabee]

Sure, an economist with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT who works for the ENVIRONMENTAL protection agency would be unable to grasp the “hard science” of global warming.

Al Gore gets it, of course, but he dropped out of law school and grad school and has made millions and will make millions if this B.S. continues.

I’ll guess that in about 10 years no one will be talking about global warming. It will be up there with the breast implant scare.

Of course, this attack against this director is not relevant to these findings in the report:

Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.

Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.

The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”

Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.

Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.

Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Why-did-the-EPA-smother-a-scientific-report-that-questioned-global-warming

[luchabee]

Sure, an economist with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT who works for the ENVIRONMENTAL protection agency would be unable to grasp the “hard science” of global warming.

Al Gore gets it, of course, but he dropped out of law school and grad school and has made millions and will make millions if this B.S. continues.

I’ll guess that in about 10 years no one will be talking about global warming. It will be up there with the breast implant scare.

Of course, this attack against this director is not relevant to these findings in the report:

Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.

Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.

The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”

Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.

Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.

Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Why-did-the-EPA-smother-a-scientific-report-that-questioned-global-warming

[luchabee]

Sure, an economist with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT who works for the ENVIRONMENTAL protection agency would be unable to grasp the “hard science” of global warming.

Al Gore gets it, of course, but he dropped out of law school and grad school and has made millions and will make millions if this B.S. continues.

I’ll guess that in about 10 years no one will be talking about global warming. It will be up there with the breast implant scare.

Of course, this attack against this director is not relevant to these findings in the report:

Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.

Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.

The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”

Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.

Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.

Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Why-did-the-EPA-smother-a-scientific-report-that-questioned-global-warming

[luchabee]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html%5B/quote%5D

Thanks Zeit.

I guess another inconvenient (and covered up) truth.

These representatives are nuts or evil or both.

Maybe stupid and gullible also?

[luchabee]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html%5B/quote%5D

Thanks Zeit.

I guess another inconvenient (and covered up) truth.

These representatives are nuts or evil or both.

Maybe stupid and gullible also?

[luchabee]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html%5B/quote%5D

Thanks Zeit.

I guess another inconvenient (and covered up) truth.

These representatives are nuts or evil or both.

Maybe stupid and gullible also?

[luchabee]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html%5B/quote%5D

Thanks Zeit.

I guess another inconvenient (and covered up) truth.

These representatives are nuts or evil or both.

Maybe stupid and gullible also?

[luchabee]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html%5B/quote%5D

Thanks Zeit.

I guess another inconvenient (and covered up) truth.

These representatives are nuts or evil or both.

Maybe stupid and gullible also?

[Author]

Posts