The politics of global warming “science”

The Preface to the recently discovered internal EPA report (which was suppressed for political reasons), begins:

We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.

The report provides a list of important developments that include

  • Global temperatures have declined for 11 years while CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels have continued to increase
  • There appears no correlation between global temperature and hurricanes
  • Greenland is not melting
  • The recession has resulted in greatly decreased greenhouse gas levels
  • A crucial assumption made by the IPCC is not supported by empirical evidence, and actually the feedback is negative
  • IPCC used faulty solar data dismissing the impact of solar variability on global warming

Even more astounding are the internal EPA e-mails quashing the report, one of which states (directed to the author of the study):

The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.

This is shocking behavior, but then again, it isn’t. Many of have known for some time that the true science is being ignored by those wanting to push through manic legislation such as Obama’s Cap and Tax bill (which, by the way, contains many, many surprises that will cripple our economy even more).

Why aren’t more people upset by this?

This entry was posted in Politics/Current Events and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The politics of global warming “science”

  1. Steve Martin says:

    Here is the rub.

    If people want to believe in unicorns…so be it.

    They just not ought FORCE other people to believe in them.

    They ought use their own money and alter their own lifestyles to accomodate their unicorn beliefs.

    But the totalitarian instincts of the ‘left’ are just too strong, so they would FORCE everyone into believing in their fantasies. And destroy them if they won’t go along.

  2. Steve Martin says:


    If you believe those examples I cited were foolish, then you are naive.

    That’s one of the hallmarks of leftists…naivete’.

  3. In each of your examples you show how foolish is your positions are.

    Being “right” means never having to look at the facts, you just “know” it.

    I’ve had enough of your willful ignorance, Steve.

  4. Steve Martin says:


    You just listen to one side.

    The left has been wrong on every one of these fear issues in the last 60 years.

    The Population Bomb – wrong.
    Communism – wrong.
    The New Ice Age – wrong
    DDT – wrong
    Heterosexual Aids – wrong
    Secondhand smoke -wrong
    Global Warming – wrong

    CO2 follows temp rise. That is the science, Mike.

    You guys will be proven wrong again.And you will take away people’s freedoms and destro economies in the process. And you guys will not apologize for it.

    Being ‘left’ means ‘ever having to say you’re sorry’.

  5. Your ignorance is not evidence, and the fact that you hold onto it means that you are not willing to “debate” it at all but to hold up some red herring about this being a “left/right” issue. There are a great number of things that “leftists” no longer debate:

    1. There is no link between ethyl mercury and autism.
    2. We share common ancestry with the great apes.
    3. The Universe is approximately 14 billion years old.
    4. Light travels at 186000 miles per second.
    5. The earth orbits the sun.

    It’s not the “leftists in the schools” it is the scientists in the field actually doing the work and producing the data. The earth is getting warmer because of human activity, and this is an overall trend measured through a variety of collaborating sources. The earth has certainly not been getting cooler over the last 10 years, although there are localized variations in the warming trend, and an unusual spike in 1998 caused by an “el nino” skewed the data to make it look like it was cooling in subsequent years. The overall trend is still upwards.

    What we hate is having to go over the same things again and again while people like you cover your ears and say “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!” It’s like getting stuck in the Bill Murray movie “Groundhog Day.”

    I’ll give you all the resources you need in order to get a better understanding, if you wish. If you simply wish to fall back on the “leftist” trope, that’s your choice.

    Who would you rather learn from on auto mechanics, Steve? An auto mechanic or an economist. I would go with the mechanic, myself.

    I bring up the issue of the phraseology being changed to point out that this name change is not some Obama thing, but something recognized while Bush was president, even as his administration politicized the issue. The change is largely in recognition that there are a large range of changes in both temperatures (some localities will, yes, cool in response to the changes being observed,)increasing numbers of major climate events, rising levels of carbolic acid in the ocean, danger of melting the methane ice buried in Siberia’s tundra, the disruption of the Gulf Stream flow in the Atlantic Ocean which will cause Northern Europe to cool, etc.

    I’ll show you where the science is, Steve, just demonstrate that it is you who is “not afraid of the science.” Or would you rather sit back on your “left/right” stance?

  6. Steve Martin says:


    “And Steve‚Äôs commentary that liberals are afraid of the science is just ludicrous, and he has lost whatever crumb of credibility that he may have ever had.”

    That a load of horse dung and you know it.

    Liberals will not debate on this. The leftists in the schools only give one side.

    Leftists hate debate on the topic.

    Can you back up that it was the Bush Admin. that changed the name? Does it make it right? The reason it was changed is because the temps in the last ten years have been COOLER.

  7. Quotes taken out of context to change the meaning or alter the intent of the original writer are dishonest. You have seen this when groups such as the “Disco ‘Tute” take Darwin’s famous quote about the natural development of the eye to be “absurd” and leave it at that when the passage that follows lays out a complete explanation of how it could happen naturally. Quote-mining in that context would indicate that even Darwin didn’t believe what he was writing, so no one else should.

    In the case here, where the CEI is trying to make the case that the supposed “suppression” of the paper occurred during the Obama administration, they are conveniently leaving out the fact that in 2007 Carlin had trouble getting this commentary approved by MacFarland (sp?). Are FOX news reporting that? No, they are trying to hide it.

    It is also interesting to note that in this commentary, Carlin is in some places making the case that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact and that he is proposing a different solution, yet in other places he is trying to say that it isn’t a fact. This is another reason that the commentary didn’t meet the standards for publication.

    Plagiarism, or unattributed quotes, as in this case should not be published and attributed to the author; which is another reason that this should not have been included. It had nothing to do with the Obama administration trying to hide the facts from the American people.

    This particular incident is an example of the RWS trying to scare up a “conspiracy” where there is none.

    And Steve’s commentary that liberals are afraid of the science is just ludicrous, and he has lost whatever crumb of credibility that he may have ever had.

    Finally, I am interested in learning more about the data that don’t meet the standards. Can you tell me more?

  8. me says:


    I thought your comment interesting on plagiarism. What difference does it make? What difference does it make that it’s not a “paper” but a “comment?” What difference does it make that it’s poorly written?

    You always use “quote-mining” as a defense. A quote-mine is nothing more than a quote that you don’t like. Are his quotes taken out of context? Do they misrepresent the intent of the author? I’ve mentioned countless times that environmentalists “data mine” – the model fails to account for much of the data, which actually contradicts the presumptions. By the way, do you happen to know what percent of the U.S. temperature data comes from stations which don’t meet the standards? And we’ve supposedly got the best data!

  9. I guess Colbert is right. “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

  10. I watched your little video, and guess what? Climatologists know how to read the effects of solar cycles and volcanic activity, and how to test the null hypothesis related to the cycles. Here is a brief explanation.

  11. Sorry, Steve, you’re not even wrong on this. It’s conspiracy stuff on the order of UFO’s and moon landing. And what, in this case is the “true evil” from which we run? I don’t even know what you mean by that and your reasoning by such a weird statement is incredibly suspect.

    Did you read the report by Carlin? It is crap, and it has nothing to do with “science.”

    The global warming name was changed by the Bush Administration, by the way.

  12. Steve Martin says:

    Here is something from credible, accomplished scientists in the field that the left would never even consider.

    It makes too much sense.

  13. Steve Martin says:


    Conservatives want to discuss the science. Liberals do not.

    It is liberals who say “The debate is closed.”

    Ruining economies over a fraud is an outrage.

    If the earth is warming, why did they change the name of this hoax to “climate change” from “global warming”?

    This is just the latest religion for those on the left who feel the need to fight agaist something, but they are afraid to face and fight (or even name) true evil.
    There is risk involved with that.

  14. Having now read through the study and through the e-mails, and knowing as much as I do about the process of publishing; I request that you put on your critical thinking skills hat to re-examine this issue.

    1. This report of Carlin’s is a “comment” and not a paper. It is poorly written, poorly sourced and in large part plagiarized without attribution.

    2. It is written by a person not trained in climatology but instead by someone trainmed in environmental economics.

    3. The four e-mails published by CEI are obviously a small part of a chain of communications, selected by CEI to show their “conspiracy” point. Creationists tend to do the same thing with quote-mining.

    James Inhofe and Michelle Bachmann are threatening to investigate, and I hope they do. They have both been a barrel of monkeys with their stubborn ways of clinging to stupidity.

    I don’t like the energy bill for a couple of reasons:

    a. There is no such thing as “clean coal” because even if they could burn it without releasing mercury and toxins into the air, they would have to deal with extractions. Mountaintop removal is environmentally disastrous.

    b. Cap-and-Trade creates another commodity to be exploited by traders on Wall Street. Goldman-Sachs apparently are big donors to many of the Democrats pushing this. There are times that I wish the Democrats were as socialistic as the RWS claims them to be.

  15. Pingback: He Said, She Said on Global Climate Changes | Tangled Up in Blue Guy

  16. As always, there is more to the story. A great deal of Carlin’s “comment” consists of plagiarism, and more importantly it uses skewed interpretations of the data to lead to faulty conclusions.

    Here is a link to the details at Deep Climate.

    Steve, one of the most important points that you continually gloss over is that local conditions are not measures of global trends. It could be 10 degrees cooler than the average here in Minnesota today, but that is not evidence that the overall trends in global temperature are false.

    I am baffled that conservatives so readily choose to bury their heads in the sand over this issue. The fixes to global climate change mean opportunity and money to be made in developing alternatives to the existing dependence on a diminishing resource.

  17. Steve Martin says:

    Ooops…I forgot to mention that I was speaking of So. Cal (temps in June)

  18. Steve Martin says:

    This past month (June ’09), every single day of the month was cooler than the average temp. for June in years past.

    Global warming actually means…cooling?

    This nonsense is the biggest scam in the history of the world.

  19. Steve Martin says:

    People do not care. They are overwhelmed by info. and events and tune most of them out and defer to the government to take care of things.

    Government is taking care of things alright. So much so that by the time some of these people wake up, they will no longer have a job, a home to live in, or an incandescent bulb to burn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *