Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
reports of a cover-up by the (environmental protection agency) epa and obama administration had surfaced. Fox news reported and interviewed this morning allen carlin, a researcher for the epa. Carlin had done a study and found that global warming is not man made and that the epa needs to review the science behind global warming, rather then relying on reports from the united nations.
Carlin said, my view is..there is not currently any reason to regulate carbon dioxide. Global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. he goes on and says theyre not going up. If anything, theyre going down. allen carlin, authors of epa study on climate change.
Carlin sent in his findings to his supervisor, which sent him an email back saying: the administrator and the (obama) administration have decided to move forward and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. al mcgartland, epa official per (cbs news)
(r) oklahoma senator james inhofe tells fox news that there is already an investigation on the way. Investigation is great, but i think we the people should request a criminal investigation. After all, cap and trade makes bernie madoff $50 billion dollar ponzi scheme look like chump change.
youtube - the epa buried an internal study by alan carlin, that was extremely critical of global warming.
as it stands, our federal government controls 85% of the carbon credits. Who or what company do you think obama is going to give these credits to? My guess is that it wont be anyone that supported mccain. Dont think for a second that obama doesnt have a list of every major contributor. He does and like santa, he checks this list often and sometimes twice.
The carbon credits that make up the remaining 15% are owned by al gore and companies like ge. Its been said that if this bill goes through, al gore will make close to $100 million dollars or more.
Cap and trade will not come in the form of a tax but higher energy costs and product costs. Our manufactures will be forced to outsource their production or stay in the u.s. And pass the cost to us consumers. Our utility companies will have to raise cost. Based on a 2007 study by mit, it could cost households $3,100 per year. The conservative heritage foundation is saying $1,500 per year by 2035, and the epa is saying only a rise of $98 to $140 a year. Who do you believe and why are the numbers so far apart?
Since the cost wont come in the form of a tax, we the people will be yelling at the utilities and not our government. With that said, please write or call your senator and tell them to vote no on cap and trade. Should the bill be passed, you need to keep your eye on the ball. Dont yell at your utilities, yell at who sponsored this reform.
-jimjones
borderlineiq
jim jones (borderlineiq) on twitter
source: Fox news, cbs news, the hermitage foundation, epa, factcheck.org
Maggie, you seriously don't believe that Global Warming has anything to do with the heatwave in Texas do you? really? So how then do you explain cooler than normal temps. in the N.E. last month? Global Cooling? the fact is that Global Warming Maggie is a Marketing scheme set up to create a need where none exited before and a clever one too I might add, because any weather pattern be it cold,hot, rain,snow, can be attributed to it without any supporting data to show. In fact Maggie. Global Temps have risen about .06 degrees in the last 130 years according to NASA, and in fact in the last 8 years global temps have remained the same or have fallen. So please Maggie, your an intelligent person I know, don't buy into this nonsense. If you really want to do something about the environment, then support energy solutions that are environmentally friendly and help the economy at the same time and that basically can cover a whole range of solutions from domestic natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, and whole host of others... Thats if you want an energy bill that works ...
Maggie, you seriously don't believe that Global Warming has anything to do with the heatwave in Texas do you? really? So how then do you explain cooler than normal temps. in the N.E. last month? Global Cooling? the fact is that Global Warming Maggie is a Marketing scheme set up to create a need where none exited before and a clever one too I might add, because any weather pattern be it cold,hot, rain,snow, can be attributed to it without any supporting data to show. In fact Maggie. Global Temps have risen about .06 degrees in the last 130 years according to NASA, and in fact in the last 8 years global temps have remained the same or have fallen. So please Maggie, your an intelligent person I know, don't buy into this nonsense. If you really want to do something about the environment, then support energy solutions that are environmentally friendly and help the economy at the same time and that basically can cover a whole range of solutions from domestic natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, and whole host of others... Thats if you want an energy bill that works ...
It's pretty simple really.
Melting Arctic ice is causing the heat conveyer called the Gulf Stream to slow down, so the NE gets cooler while the West gets hotter.
Meanwhile the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and the ice continues to melt.
The Flat Earthers strike back!
Next target.............EVOLUTION!!!
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 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."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."
E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.
If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Maggie, you seriously don't believe that Global Warming has anything to do with the heatwave in Texas do you? really? So how then do you explain cooler than normal temps. in the N.E. last month? Global Cooling? the fact is that Global Warming Maggie is a Marketing scheme set up to create a need where none exited before and a clever one too I might add, because any weather pattern be it cold,hot, rain,snow, can be attributed to it without any supporting data to show. In fact Maggie. Global Temps have risen about .06 degrees in the last 130 years according to NASA, and in fact in the last 8 years global temps have remained the same or have fallen. So please Maggie, your an intelligent person I know, don't buy into this nonsense. If you really want to do something about the environment, then support energy solutions that are environmentally friendly and help the economy at the same time and that basically can cover a whole range of solutions from domestic natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, and whole host of others... Thats if you want an energy bill that works ...
It's pretty simple really.
Melting Arctic ice is causing the heat conveyer called the Gulf Stream to slow down, so the NE gets cooler while the West gets hotter.
Meanwhile the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and the ice continues to melt.
The audacity & ignorance of man to believe that since he has been on this planet-- for the blink of an eye--in earth terms--that he can control or manipulate global climate change aka mother nature is beyond anyone's wildest imagination. Furthermore, to make a claim that CO2, is a polutant to our atmosphere--a gas that is necessary for life on earth--& now man knows when mother earth is getting too much of it--is beyond any rational comprehension.
The physics of Greenhouse gases have been known for over 100 years. The fact that Carlin dismisses those facts out of hand tells me that he is grinding the axe for somebody not at all interested in truth. How many scientific societies has he convinced of his nonsense?
The physics of Greenhouse gases have been known for over 100 years. The fact that Carlin dismisses those facts out of hand tells me that he is grinding the axe for somebody not at all interested in truth. How many scientific societies has he convinced of his nonsense?
That's so typical. Someone expresses an opinion that is inconvenient and you dismiss it as someone with an ax to grind. Yet the tens of thousands of scientists who make a very good living from climate science are somehow to be believed because they, of course, have no ax to grind and are only "interested in truth".
That dawg don't hunt. One rule for all.
The physics of Greenhouse gases have been known for over 100 years. The fact that Carlin dismisses those facts out of hand tells me that he is grinding the axe for somebody not at all interested in truth. How many scientific societies has he convinced of his nonsense?
That's so typical. Someone expresses an opinion that is inconvenient and you dismiss it as someone with an ax to grind. Yet the tens of thousands of scientists who make a very good living from climate science are somehow to be believed because they, of course, have no ax to grind and are only "interested in truth".
That dawg don't hunt. One rule for all.
The physics of Greenhouse gases have been known for over 100 years. The fact that Carlin dismisses those facts out of hand tells me that he is grinding the axe for somebody not at all interested in truth. How many scientific societies has he convinced of his nonsense?
That's so typical. Someone expresses an opinion that is inconvenient and you dismiss it as someone with an ax to grind. Yet the tens of thousands of scientists who make a very good living from climate science are somehow to be believed because they, of course, have no ax to grind and are only "interested in truth".
That dawg don't hunt. One rule for all.
But but but ... historically starving and ignored scientists have never been right ...
... you know Einstein was just batty, he didn't make enough money to be a REAL scientist.
That's so typical. Someone expresses an opinion that is inconvenient and you dismiss it as someone with an ax to grind. Yet the tens of thousands of scientists who make a very good living from climate science are somehow to be believed because they, of course, have no ax to grind and are only "interested in truth".
That dawg don't hunt. One rule for all.
But but but ... historically starving and ignored scientists have never been right ...
... you know Einstein was just batty, he didn't make enough money to be a REAL scientist.
Damn, Kitten, are you truly that stupid? Einstein was a well paid patent clerk for Switzerland at the time he published his Theory of Special Relitivity. After that, he was known worldwide. He was never a starving, ignored scientist.
Almost always, when a scientist buck the whole establishment, he is wrong. There are some notable exceptions, but their hypothesis did not fly in the face of known science, just interpreted the evidence in ways that had not been done before. Notably, in my field of interest, you have J. Harlan Bretz. But his opposition was based on their lack of observation, his hypothesis based on direct observations. This fellow that states that CO2 has little effect on atmospheric temperatures is flying in the face of known physics and direct observations.
But but but ... historically starving and ignored scientists have never been right ...
... you know Einstein was just batty, he didn't make enough money to be a REAL scientist.
Damn, Kitten, are you truly that stupid? Einstein was a well paid patent clerk for Switzerland at the time he published his Theory of Special Relitivity. After that, he was known worldwide. He was never a starving, ignored scientist.
Almost always, when a scientist buck the whole establishment, he is wrong. There are some notable exceptions, but their hypothesis did not fly in the face of known science, just interpreted the evidence in ways that had not been done before. Notably, in my field of interest, you have J. Harlan Bretz. But his opposition was based on their lack of observation, his hypothesis based on direct observations. This fellow that states that CO2 has little effect on atmospheric temperatures is flying in the face of known physics and direct observations.
He wasn't a paid scientist until after his great discovery though ...
He also was never a "peer pressured" scientist like all of yours ...
Also, he never endorsed certain products from very specific companies ...
Lastly, he came from a poor family not a privileged one ...
Damn, the same thing happened to me. I submitted a report to the EPA detailing how Mormon space aliens were mind controlling masses of people into believing in Global warming. And just because I'm not a credible scientist they deemed me a crack pot and threw my report in the garbage.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 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."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."
E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS NewsCarlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.
If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
