Climategate: Sensenbrenner Report Challenges EPA Greenhouse Finding (PJM Exclusive)
Dr. Carlin’s concerns were suppressed by the EPA. Dr. Al McGartland, head of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, said, forthrightly, that Dr. Carlin’s view was not to be published because “[the]administrator and administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
That is, Dr. McGartland was saying the decision to issue an endangerment finding had been made at the top of the EPA and counterarguments were unwelcome. Dr. Carlin later found out just how unwelcome his comments had been: he was ordered not to speak about the topic, removed from EPA climate policy committees, and eventually demoted.
This morning’s hearing is of a piece with the administration’s previous positions. In fact, the meeting announcement begins with this statement:
Even after months of personal attacks against climate scientists stemming from a manufactured scandal over stolen emails, the underlying science behind the need to stem the tide of heat-trapping emissions remains solid.
It appears that skeptical views of anthropogenic climate change remain unwelcome, at least in certain quarters in Washington.
[Update: Corrected Sensenbrenner's political affiliation, thanks to commenters Jay and BC.]
How on God’s green earth can carbon dioxide be a pollutant? If you artificialy increase it ,plants will grow faster and stronger.
When greed, profit and ‘change’ rules Washington’s discourse, NO good will come of it. In fact, the veneer of ‘hearings’ is in order to place a kosher fig leaf around the science which has long been ‘settled’. Hmm.
To their eternal shame, scientists who shill for Washington strongmen are nothing more than paid prostitutes, albeit of the ‘scientific’ variety.
Here’s hoping Lord Monckton runs them through the meat grinder, chews them up, and spits them out!
Environmentalists are invariably people that want others to use less energy!
If Obama/Gore really believed global warming, they would talk non stop about lowering speed limits to 50 and demand that Americans stop jack rabbit starts and stop racing to lights that are red.
Virtually no Americans believe it either; just look at the fuel wasting driving habits; that also fund the other sides war against us! If you believe the hurricane may kill you/your family: you leave. The driving habits prove no one believes it.
The congress/press are selling a scam, for profit, not seen since the middle ages; The cap and trade scam is a variation of the “indulgences scam” used, among other things, to man the crusades/get bad people to go somewhere else!
Post the data showing the randomly selected locations where temperature and snow pack are documented for 1 million years and that will tell the tale. Select locations that meet your agenda: liars figure but figures do not lie!
Earth wobbles, sun spots, ocean currents/temperature, volcanoes, solar storms/winds et al;
(R-WI)
James Sensenbrenner is a Republican and not the “D-WI”.
He’s also no more than another member of the Inhofe gang of anti-science idiots.
Since when does calling a scam, a scam, make one anti-science?
When the supposed “scam” only exists in the minds of the badly confused and those with malicious political agendas.
It’s a scam alright. There is not, and never has been a shred of actual science behind the AGW scam.
The only ones with malicious intent, are those who are using this scam to push their political agendas and to make themselves rich.
The sad thing is that you actually believe that either of the newspaper articles you presented, constitution a legitimate argument.
How droll to accuse scientists with a solid understanding of the statistics, physics, and chemistry while supporting non-peer reviewed scare stories from corrupt bureaucrats. Not to mention the proven debasing of the temperature record by the AGW zealots as well as the laughably false “hockey stick” notion.
Come back when you actually have something more than accusations, moron.
How about 700 PEER REVIEWED papers that refute CAGW? For the listing see http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
How about Following the Money? http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/
Heck Greenpeace is funded with standard oil money and CRU with funds from Shell oil. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/05/climategate-research-unit-sought-funds-shell-oil
When the Denmark papers were leaked it showed the World Bank was going to be in control. This validates the Club of Rome snippet:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
- Richard Haass, Club of Rome Document, 1991, “The First Global Revolution” p. 71,75 1993
The father of the environmental movement who started the “Global Warming” cry at the first earth summit in 1972 was Maurice Strong. Strong is a Senior Adviser to the World Bank, Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Chairman/president of Canadian Oil companies. Where does the big man at Kyoto, co-owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange actually stand with regards to CO2?
“…Ontario Hydro, an industrial concern, headed by Earth Summit secretary general Maurice Strong, which is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada… http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/061.html
It is Politics Dude, just politics and another way to fleece the sheep.
Bc – It probably does not interest you but the anti-science Sensenbrenner scored an almost perfect score in math on his S.A.T’s.I am sure you were in the same range,LOL.
So you’re saying he peaked intellectually in high school? That would fit.
You have yet to demonstrate that he is wrong about anything.
Disagreeing with the press releases of advocacy groups does not make a person wrong.
Especially when those advocacy groups have themselves, a long history of being wrong.
There isn’t a single shred of scientifically verifiable evidence to support the notion that CO2 is warming the planet by more than a few hundredths of a degree.
It’s weird how those propagated the hoax are the first to try and blame others for their lack of success of selling the ignorant public on the hoax.
How about you put your time into finding Al Gore’s missing swaddling CO2 blanket. In a sane world that itself would end the lies.
We don’t need no stinking science to erect our world wide CRIME INC scam, selling invisible air.
Anti-science idiots? Those are the warmists who push lies about a non-existent warming. Not just that but they also falsify temperature records to show that warming exists when it does not. In the eighties and nineties there was no warming, just a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years. But in 1988, in the middle of it, Hansen gets up in front of the Senate and testifies that warming has started thanks to all the carbon dioxide we are putting into the air. Satellites that measure temperature more accurately than land-base thermometers simply cannot see that warming. Real warming did start in 1998, ten years after his testimony, and it was not caused by the greenhouse effect. To learn how the trick was done read “What Warming?” available on Amazon.com.
Calls it into question?
How can you call something that doesn’t exist, into question?
How can you not?
he was ordered not to speak about the topic, removed from EPA climate policy committees, and eventually demoted
—-
The funny thing is that Dr. Hansen, despite giving an average of three interviews a day, constantly complains about how the Bush administration was preventing him from speaking out.
Yeah.. right…
It’s a sad day when our leaders in Washington convene in order to advance an agenda instead of to discover real, scientific truth about carbon dioxide.
This is an overreach on the part of the EPA in an attempt to further restrict our economy using “climate science” as the excuse. It’s not their role to promote false assumptions and the fairy tale that we can “save the planet”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Hopefully this Novembers’ election will restore adult leadership in Washington and we can instead hold hearings to evaluate whether or not to continue funding the EPA.
EPA to Scientist: “Your thoughts are unwelcome here! YOU’RE DEMOTED!! … please don’t tell anyone…”
I am betting that BC is not a scientist, because global warming nuts usually aren’t. Sensenbrenner is a good man that calls bullshit when he sees it, no matter how hard his critics bleats. Fancy that a Republican who sticks to his principles.
A scientist would at least link us to studies that back his position.
BC just posts news releases from advocacy groups. (Pretty much what the IPCC did.)
Sensenbrenner is my rep. If you remember, he was also the one who called bullshit on the fraud in the Katrina relief. He not only is as tenacous as a bulldog, he looks like one, too. Wish we had a few more like him.
Have you noticed the total absence of articles about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico at this website??
I still hear the echoes of ‘Drill, baby, drill’ . . .
Why do you believe that makes a difference?
Why do you believe that this spill discredits the drill baby drill philosophy?
Why do you believe you have anything credible to say?
Actually Vivo, I’ve been working very hard on an article on just that issue. It will of course be up to the editors if they want it or not, but I would suspect I’m not the only contributor working on the issue.
I will say it if you like “Drill baby drill!”
I would wager the majority of AGW proponents at the policy level don’t really believe it either. It’s simply a convenient stick with which to beat their political opponents. Certainly the evidence mounts that the whole thing is a put up job.
BC? To answer your “anti-science” charge. In point of fact, the actual, verifiable climate data we have is approximately 150 years of readings. In a system which has been around for billions of years, or lets be more fair, just the 5,000 years or so of human recorded history, 150 years worth of data is statistically insignificant. No statistician worth his salt would ever make a prediction based on that.
Moreover, this is merely an attempt to use the Gaiaists, “precautionary principle” which has unfortunately gained entirely too much traction in Europe and is beginning to gain traction here, to prevent anything from being done. Ever.
(The precautionary principal is basically, if you can’t prove a certain action will not cause harm you shouldn’t take the action. Of course, you can’t prove a negative. All actions have the potential for harm. Therefore we should all sit at home and do nothing. For the truly radical Gaiaists humanity is a parasitic species and we should all be wiped out — well, not them of course, they Get It.)
To push the point even further, it’s only 30 years of satellite data.
The ground based network is concentrated in the US and Europe. What’s that, 10% of the Earth’s surface area?
The ground based temperature network is hopelessly contaminated. UHI influences, undocumented microsite changes, undocumented equipment changes, lack of maintenance on many of the sensor housings.
Anthony Watts has a volunteer network that has been surveying the US network. I believe they have done about 2/3rds of the sites. Using NOAA’s ranking system of 1-5 with only class 1 and 2 being considered good enough to use, something like 1/3rd of the sites are ranked 5, which according to the NOAA documentation means warming errors of 5 degrees C or more are possible. Only about 10% of the sites fell into the class 1 or 2 range.
The idea that we can pull a temperature signal of less than 0.05C per decade out of this miasma is utterly absurd.
The satellite record over the last 30 years shows much less warming than does the “adjusted” ground record.
Have you noticed the total absence of your addressing the topic at hand?
I can still here your echos of “CO2 is a pollutant!”
You’re right. You’d think they might write something trying to blame Obama for not acting sooner, but the whole gooey, spreading mess has put a chill on the meme of how safe off-shore drilling is, how there have been no major spills blah, blah. It’s not something that makes me happy at all, though. We need the damned oil, but at what risk to our waters, beaches, marshes, estuaries, etc?
The EPA about to enact it’s onerous rules that will cost billions – the FCC is attempting to foist ‘net neutrality’ (control) – riots are breaking out daily (and nightly) in Arizona and elsewhere – kids get kicked out of school for wearing the American flag – the gulf coast is being inundated with spilled oil and a Fed Gov seemingly paralyzed with no plan of action – Iran gets one day closer to wiping Israel (and maybe us) off the map – Jihadist attempts to blow up Times Square – unemployment hangs at 9.7% – etc etc etc – and Obama is partying with illegals in the White House.
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
Nothing is wrong with this picture, if you take into consideration that the true goal of the subversives is to weaken America.
They are doing exactly what they want to do, they want to destroy the only country in the world that can defend Freedom.
Once America’s might (economic and military) is reduced, the Chavez and the Castros of the world will be able to carry on their funny experiments with humans and history on a scale never seen before.
The internationalist subversives have been working at this project for decades, and now they are very near to success.
Pray, and organize the roll-back vote in November.
Viscount Monckton has them outnumbered; Go, Team !
Dr. Carlin found out the hard way that,
if you mess with the Big Boys, they hurt you.
The US cannot afford scientific censorship
when the economic and political stakes are this high;
Congress, Grand Inquest of the Nation: Can you hear us yet ?
@ 11. Vivo spills it
Obama is still trying to figure out how to blame his slow response
to the oil spill on Bush, and making sure his Lackey’s boot stays
on BP’s neck until they have paid for the spill.
Of course, Obama’s worst nightmare is the low-but-non-negligible probability scenario wherein the failure of a multiple-redundant fail-safe shut-off valve
was a Terrorist caused disaster, on his watch.
BP should have come up with solutions BEFORE the spill. They just don’t care.
Lisa Jackson, the head polemicist at the EPA (for whom Climategate, the Original changed nothing about her views on AGW or her agenda at the EPA) was nowhere near the gulf incident until it became politically expedient to do so, more than a week after it happened.
Obama’s sec’y of the interior, Tom Strickland, went on a Grand Canyon rafting trip 3 days after the oil rig blew up.
These so called stewards of the environment in the Obama administration don’t seem to care jack sh!t until some incident or other becomes important, politically.
Rajendra Pachauri and his IPCC reports fall into the same category.
Charlatans, one and all, none of them particularly knowledgeable as to whether or not CO2 is a pollutant (don’t exhale), but all apparently determined to push an agenda, for personal and political gain.
Lisa wants to help out her Carbon Credits immersed POTUS and his plan for our own home energy costs to “necessarily skyrocket”.
About drilling..I say move ahead as soon as possible. If we had been drilling in Alaska instead, we would not be having these deep sea disaters in the first place. The only reason oil companies go fishing for oil in 10,000 feet of water is because of the idots who stop us drilling on our own land. Yep, the same ones telling us carbon dioxide is going to kill us. The same ones that will not let us have nuclear plants. This oil spill is because our simple solutions are being prevented by these same people claiming to care about the environment. That is total BS. By the way, none of you “environmentalists” had any problems with the Big “Zero” giving $2 Billion of our money to South America and his handlers to drill offshore. Actually the thought has been floated that Zero delayed the clean up efforts by the US, who had plans in plans, just to make the disaster a little worse to further his agenda. You know what, his previous actions make that very hard not to believe. This is about ruining the US, these bozos have never seen the mess in the Countries they love, hello third world.
If the enviro’s hadn’t made it impossible to drill in shallower waters, we would not be drilling in such deep waters yet. A few more years of experience might have been enough to prevent this accident. (Assuming it was an accident.)
“Believing” or “denying” is not science. It is politics or religion.
Science is:
1. Postulating a theory.
2. Proving it using the data available.
3. Releasing the raw data so that anyone can replicate the proof.
Number three is where the golbal warming alarmists fall apart. When you manipulate your data to fit a theory, you can’t release the data for back-up proof without being called out.
Game.
Set.
Match.
You’re my new hero.
Actually, it’s number two were they fall apart.
They can’t prove it with actual data, because actual data does not exist.
Is a fake member of the House of Lords (Viscount Monckton) the best expert the “skeptics” could come up with? If he fakes his membership, then he can fake everything else as well.
Any substance, over a certain limit, can become a toxin. So it is with CO2.
Is nobody else here sick of seeing Iranian mullahs and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela get rich from rising oil prices?
CO2 doesn’t get toxic until it’s closer to 100,000 ppm.
A few million years ago, CO2 levels were more than 20,000 ppm.
The rise from 270ppm to 350ppm is nothing.
I would love to lower the price of oil. The way to do that is to increase supply of oil, it’s not ruining our economy by stopping the useage of oil.
Hey toby,
You said “Is nobody else here sick of seeing Iranian mullahs and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela get rich from rising oil prices?”
Please don’t try to change the argument. By using that old debate trick you’re basically admitting that you know you can’t win the debate on the subject at hand. Also, please remember that your fellow travelling eco-idealists are the reason we have been pigeon-holed into the energy predicament we are in today.
The EPA doesn’t do it’s own research. It buys into publications of outsiders that fit t popular opinion. This may be the first and most significant opportunity the non scientific EPA can prove we have wrming and CO2 caused it because it comes from human activity.
Nice thing about the web is cross reference of stories. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/leaked-omb-co2-memo-no-demonstrated-direct-health-effects/
But here is the real kicker.
There’s language in the memo that says there may be beneficial effects to increased CO2 rather than negative effects, and that man, as always, can quickly adapt:
“To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages,” the memo reads. “The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.] … It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons,” the authors note.
Internal secret lawyer memos call out Lisa Jackson’s idiocy.
The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.
“In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.
I’m looking forward to seeing Lisa Jackson and her minions spending the rest of their political lives under subpoena.
Actually they will spend it in prison.
Maybe Obama can use some of the millions in BP donations received by himself and the Democrats to look into this.
Or does using money from big oil invalidate the results, even when Obama does it?
Suppose someone invents a machine that can (for free) absorb ANY amount of CO2 from the air – at what level shall we stop?
Zero will cause all plants to die.
500 – 1000 ppm are nice in real greenhouses.
Should we start the machine??
Plants will start dying if concentrations get below 200ppm.
The lushest time for life that ever occurred on this planet, occurred when CO2 levels were between 15,000 and 20,000 ppm.
I’ve got a tense problem here. Will release the report? Released the report? Has released a report?
Where’s the damn link to the report?
I would like to see court battles over this. I would have attorneys spend a huge amount of time getting the chemically legal definition of “air” as in the Clean Air Act, as an example, to fight back against the EPA. It would be proven absurd to declare a fundamental component of “air” as a pollutant of the same product.
Let’s say AGW is real. To avoid a catastrophic end of our world, AGW must be reduced and eventually stopped. But Cap and Trade won’t reduce emmssions, it just collects a fee for shifting emissions to other countries. To truly control emissions, one must impose rationing. During WW2, rationing allowed only the crucial civilian industries and services to have allotments of vital supplies. Others were allotted supplies, but at just subsistence levels. To apply this fix to the AGW problem, we would first ban all non-vital activities. For example, ban all Govt, UN and NGO travel, eliminate social programs, etc. You get the idea. Since rationing is not being proposed, it means AGW is a phony threat; rather it is just a means to attain full social control.
The entire “global warming/climate change” battle is a tempest in a teapot. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that human beings releasing carbon dioxide is causing an increase in temperatures. EVERYTHING is based on “models” which are about as reliable at predicting future climate as my five-year-old is of cleaning up his toys. There are dozens of sites on the Internet that are either written by scientists, are contributed to by scientists, or contain comments from scientists about the falseness of anthropogenic climate change (Google “climate change skeptics”). One very significant fact that virtually all “climate scientists” gloss over is that water vapor (H2O) accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gasses, and we are still in the tricycle stage of understanding its role in climate. Another significant fact that is carefully NOT discussed is that the contribution of CO2 to warming DECREASES exponentially as concentrations increase. That means that doubling the amount of CO2 results in a 25% increase in greenhouse gas efficiency. Once you reach a certain point (about 450ppm) the increase in warming from CO2 is so negligible it can hardly be measured. These are FACTS most of us learned in Chemistry 101 in college (maybe Chem 102 – some colleges start slow). AGW is a hoax, and I hope Sen. Sensenbrenner’s report carries the day. Unfortunately, I don’t have much hope, knowing which side of the debate is running things.
Charlie Martin writes,
The IPCC and USGCRP (formerly USCCSP) reports are peer-reviewed.