'O'ministration conceals environmental report

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

A report has surfaced that the Environmental Protection Agency is suppressing an internal study that undermines the administration's position on global warming.




As the EPA wraps up its proposed rule-making process that seeks to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant harmful to human life, Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says the federal agency has suppressed a critical internal report.

"One of their career analysts who's been there for nearly 40 years did a study criticizing the agency's approach. His boss told him that study would be kept concealed because it would only shake things up," he explains. "Namely, the administration had decided what direction to take; namely that carbon dioxide would be regulated, and this report would only cause trouble for the agency and for that office."

Kazman says his organization was able to examine a draft of the study and basically concluded that in looking at the real-world data, warming has stopped in the last eight years. It added that in the past, ocean cycles have had greater influence on climate change than have carbon dioxide emissions.

He finds it ironic that the Obama administration has pledged to be open and transparent, yet sits on a report such as this.

Looks like a cover up to me. Cap and tax would fail if the truth got out. shhhhh.....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

in the past, ocean cycles have had greater influence on climate change than have (nitrogen? acid rain? CO2?).....

EXACTLY - the damn man-made ocean cycle effect is killing the planet. We need to stop all ocean-going activities RIGHT NOW

or at least tax the hell out of those greedy boat owning money grubbers and anything else that requires commerce of any kind

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[redlegphi 0]

The "internal study" was conducted by a man who works for the EPA but is not a scientist. Also, the report wasn't buried. According to the EPA's statement, some of what he said was included in their final findings.

From the EPA's statement on this matter:
"The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he 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."

Yup. Sure sounds like they buried it.

[DanG 1]

As pointed out in another thread, the analyst in question is an economist, not a scientist. The EPA claims they included his report in their internal review and incorporated some of itys suggestions in the final report.

Cover-up? Maybe. But not quite as black and white as it seems on its face.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

As pointed out in another thread, the analyst in question is an economist, not a scientist.

A non-scientist participating in policy analysis? It's not like the EPA rule will have any economic impact.

Apparently this is an apolitical thing. An economist who would point out things like legal requirements for EPA rule promulgation that includes economic analysis is important.

Um - the guy is an economist. Rule promulgation requires a cost benefit analysis that includes economic impact. In the event that the economic analuysis is skirted or uses methodology that deviates from the standards, one would expect that an economist would point this out!

The fact that an economist is making this statement reflects what the issue is. He reviewed under his expertise. Should a "scientist" be doing the economic analysis?

By saying, accurately, he's not a scientist it means "we have decided that economic impact is not a consideration. We have identified his points and considered some recommendations."

By saying that they implemented his recommendations, it appears that he had some valid points. So why say that he is not a scientist? Because disparagement of a speaker is much easier than a response.

What's next? Mann as Surgeon General? CO2 is a high priority danger to human health. A physician may not understand human health like a climatologist does. Thus, a climatologist (not a denier - they aren't "real climatologist) should be Surgeon General.

Hansen would be Secretary of State - CO2 being the biggest threat to mankind requires a climatologist to manage international relations.

Al Gore would be Secretary of Defense. We've given him an honorary doctorate. He's a climatologist now.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[redlegphi 0]

He's identified as "not a scientist" because his concealed (but not really concealed) report makes scientific claims. That's also why they point out that he was not part of the group that was working on this issue.

[Butters 0]

Quote

He's identified as "not a scientist" because his concealed (but not really concealed) report makes scientific claims. That's also why they point out that he was not part of the group that was working on this issue.

Can you define what a "scientist" is and what "scientific claims" are?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

He's identified as "not a scientist" because his concealed (but not really concealed) report makes scientific claims. That's also why they point out that he was not part of the group that was working on this issue.

So they say he's not a scientist. Okay. That makes sense.

It makes a lot more sense than saying, "his review of the data was wrong. The raw data did not show declining temperatures." Why, if his review was incorrect, they would have said it.

They did not. So they say, "he's not a scientist." This does not address his conclusions. This causes me to believe that his conclusions were correct. Correct enough to have them addressed into the final product.

We don't know how they were addressed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Broke 0]

What's the big deal of if someone has a piece of paper stating they get to be a scientist. If Albert Einstein had to get through the educational system today to be a "Scientist" we wouldn't have any of his theories

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[DanG 1]

I'd venture to say that when a geologist makes claims about the economy people tend not to view his opinion as expert. Why should an economist making claims about ecology be viewed any differently?

- Dan G

[billvon 3,076]

>Looks like a cover up to me.

Who was the "career analyst" who did the "study?" Was his last name Rush by any chance?

>Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says . . .

Given that the CEI is an Exxon-funded political advocacy group, somehow I don't take their comments on science very seriously.

[redlegphi 0]

It says some of his ideas were incorporated, not all of his conclusions. The fact that he had some good ideas in his paper does not make the entire paper, or its conclusions, correct.

[Butters 0]

Quote

I'd venture to say that when a geologist makes claims about the economy people tend not to view his opinion as expert. Why should an economist making claims about ecology be viewed any differently?

It shouldn't. My point is that stating an economist is not an ecologist is different than stating an economist is not a scientist.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,076]

>Um - the guy is an economist. Rule promulgation requires a cost
>benefit analysis that includes economic impact.

Of course, and per what they said, they included some of what he contributed, which was likely economic in nature.

If you had some contractors working on your house, would you have the electrician doing the plumbing and the plumber doing the wiring? If you had them perform the tasks they were trained to do, would you be "disparaging" them?

>What's next? Mann as Surgeon General?

No, he's a scientist, not a doctor. Doing that would be as foolish as having an economist work up the science in that report.

>Hansen would be Secretary of State . . .

No, he's a scientist, not a politician. Doing that would be as foolish as having an economist work up the science in that report.

>Al Gore would be Secretary of Defense.

Would make more sense than the other two (former Administration leader) but still not make a whole lot of sense.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...I don't take their comments on science very seriously.

Even if they have little pieces of paper declaring them to be official "scientists"?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>What's next? Mann as Surgeon General?

No, he's a scientist, not a doctor. Doing that would be as foolish as having an economist work up the science in that report.

Like the economist (McKitrick) that helped prove the initial errors in Mann's work, you mean?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Love the title of the thread. As usual it has absolutely no bearing on the actual information in the thread....

[Ion01 2]

Isn't the most transparent government ever great! I loved all those pictures they release on the flyover in New York too!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

please do explain what transparency has to do with this issue.

[billvon 3,076]

>Even if they have little pieces of paper declaring them to be
>official "scientists"?

I'd like to get one of those little pieces of paper! All the deniers would start believing me (provided I stick to their script, of course.)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you had some contractors working on your house, would you have the electrician doing the plumbing and the plumber doing the wiring? If you had them perform the tasks they were trained to do, would you be "disparaging" them?

No. But if the plumber says, "We've got a problem. This pipe is not grounded" I would not respond by saying, "You're no electrician. This is an electrical issue. You're a plumber, so you've got no business with this." (I better tell the electrician.)

My sense is that the statement that he's not a scientist is meant to give the spin of what he says just doesn't matter.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'd venture to say that when a geologist makes claims about the economy people tend not to view his opinion as expert. Why should an economist making claims about ecology be viewed any differently?

I'd venture to say that a scientist reviewing his tax return making claims that the W-2's did not show an income of $120k per year is not to be believed if he questions the CPA. "The data from the W-2's shows that I made $60k last year. How do you get that my income rose to $120k?"

Bah. He's a scientist. What does he know about accounting?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,076]

> But if the plumber says, "We've got a problem. This pipe is not grounded"
>I would not respond by saying, "You're no electrician. This is an electrical issue.
>You're a plumber, so you've got no business with this." (I better tell the
>electrician.)

Exactly! You would trust him when it related to his specialty. You might then tell the electrician, who would tell you you needed to ground the pipe to the house's common ground point via 10ga solid bare copper.

But what if you said that, and the plumber said "Don't listen to electricians! Most of them aren't telling the truth. Here, I'll ground it with some aluminum tape I have. It's never failed me." Would you take the plumber's word over the electrician's?

And if not, why would you be disparaging the plumber?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But what if you said that, and the plumber said "Don't listen to electricians! Most of them aren't telling the truth. Here, I'll ground it with some aluminum tape I have. It's never failed me." Would you take the plumber's word over the electrician's?

And if not, why would you be disparaging the plumber?

Is the same thing as saying, "The data does not match." I don't have to be a climatologist to read the temperature history and conclude that the raw data does not show increasing temperatures.

"The temperature readings you used do not suggest warming."

Defensive Response: "He's not a scientist. Though he did provide some ideas that we found useful."

Shifty Response: "He provided some ideas we found useful."

Non-Defensive Response: Either, "He was viewing the wrong data." Or, "He was correct. We are reassessing our conclusions."

The "He's not a scientist" statement is meant to discredit his statement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,076]

>I don't have to be a climatologist to read the temperature history and
>conclude that the raw data does not show increasing temperatures.

See below.

>Shifty Response: "He provided some ideas we found useful."

?? That's a shifty response? He's an economist. He provided economic data and scientific opinion. They used his economic data.

If you gave someone legal advice they paid you for, and also gave them your opinion on who would win the Superbowl, and they heeded your legal advice but ignored your Superbowl advice - would that be a shifty thing to do?