Times Square Billboard Counts Carbon Build Up | Newsweek Environment

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bhohrein @ 07/02/2009 11:08:19 AM

I have a degree in science and have been studying this "problem" since 1991, when AlGore was running for president. I have never seen any evidence that humans are causing climate change. The climate seems to be following the same patterns it has followed for countless centuries. I have asked scientists who believe in man-made golobal warming there the evidence is, and they tell me that we don't have it right now, but we need to take action "just in case!" This is absurd. Fortunately, the number of scientists I know who don't believe in man-made global warming outnumbers those who do by about 20:1.

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ka5s @ 06/30/2009 7:00:03 AM

Someone once proposed a carbon-dioxide tax. Based on those now forgotten figures, I calculated we would each owe about $7 a year for breathing.. The good news is that one exhales less CO2 if he does no heavy labor. A couch potato exemption?

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/26/2009 4:25:17 PM

EPA's game of global warming hide-and-seek
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/26/2009 9:45:00 AM

The Obama administration doesn't want to hear inconvenient truths about global warming. And they don't want you to hear them, either. As Democrats rush on Friday to pass a $4 trillion, thousand-page "cap and trade" bill that no one has read, environmental bureaucrats are stifling voices that threaten their political agenda.

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama's willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of "consensus." In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health "endangerment finding" covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin's study didn't fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn't make the cut.

On March 12, Carlin's director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having "any direct communication" with anyone outside his office about his study. "There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc." On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency's climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:
- - Reply
  - Report Abuse
  Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/26/2009 4:29:48 PM
  
  "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....I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."
  
  Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the "process" of ramming the EPA's endangerment finding through. Truth in science took a back seat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from "a very negative impact."
  
  In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate."
  
  But, of course, the e-mails show that EPA had already predetermined what it was going to do -- "move forward on endangerment." Which underscores the fact that the open public comment period was all for show. In her message to the public about the radical greenhouse gas rules, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson requested "comment on the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings." Jackson, meet Carlin.
  
  The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) "is an individual who is not a scientist." Neither is Al Gore. Nor is energy czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin's analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, "significant new research" related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA's reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won't be different than in the past.
  - Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/26/2009 4:33:41 PM
    - Reply
    - Report Abuse
    But the message from his superiors was clear: La-la-la, we can't hear you.
    
    In April, President Obama declared that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over." Another day, another broken promise. Will Carlin meet the same fate as inspectors general who have been fired or "retired" by the Obama administration for blowing the whistle and defying political orthodoxy? Or will he, too, be yet another casualty of the Hope and Change steamroller? The bodies are piling up.
    
    COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
    
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=582102

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/26/2009 4:23:10 PM

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.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=580722

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/26/2009 11:00:04 AM

Another Liberal ploy to increase taxes on the masses and the cost of living for every single person on the planet. It is definately a problem when we spend so much to save the planet and animals and yet abort the unborn.

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: sickoffanatics @ 06/20/2009 3:31:54 PM

Right what a joke... Well people what are you going to do when it is too late ?? I agree drastic measures have to be taken to save our planet, no matter the price. The first thing who need to be done is control of the world populations and that will not happen until we get rid of religions. If you want your grand kids to have a future, religions must go and countries have to start controling their own populations. The more humans on the planet, the more pollution, the more destruction of our environment, the less resouces for you. Religion have been and still are promoting the uncontrol breeding of the human race. It must stop !

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: rjpp64 @ 06/20/2009 3:20:33 PM

Join me in conversation about the PR aspect of this campaign at http://progressivepr.blogspot.com/. Thanks! --Rp

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: wesmenno @ 06/20/2009 3:01:42 PM

So they blame cow methane and I am no longer allowed to buy an inhaler to treat my asthma (unless I get one I can inhale without propellant! What a joke! What did I need the thing for in the first place? Could it be because I was unable to inhale? Thus goes NY).

Yet coal fired power plants go uncontrolled. In fact they are part of the push toward plug-in hybrids, shifting the pollution from the cities to the countryside.