Sanity in the Main Stream Media
FROM-New Hampshire Union Leader
Warm skepticism: Jury out on climate change
On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a draconian bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme that, by the Heritage Foundation's estimate, would slow the economy to such a degree that it would cost each American household nearly $7,000 by 2035. The House did so under the false premise that there is a scientific "consensus" that global warming a) is man-made and b) will destroy the planet.
Actually, as the letter signed by more than 100 scientists and printed on the opposite page shows, there is no such thing as a scientific consensus on those points. Many climate scientists disagree with the conventional wisdom that the earth is warming at a dangerous rate because of human activity. In fact, recent evidence suggests otherwise. And when one of the Environmental Protection Agency's own officials tried to point that out this spring, he was silenced.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute last week released a series of internal e-mails between EPA economist Alan Carlin and his boss, Al McGartland, director of the National Center for Environmental Economics. Carlin had written a report concluding that the EPA's position on climate change relied heavily on conclusions by outside groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that the EPA did not conduct its own review of that research. His report concluded that the IPCC conclusions, on which last week's cap-and-trade bill were based, were outdated and that more recent research suggests that there is no need to immediately pass legislation designed to reduce man-made carbon emissions.
What did the "transparent" and "open" Obama administration do with his report? It suppressed it. Not only that, McGartland silenced Carlin, writing in an e-mail to him, "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of NCEE on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."
In another e-mail, McGartland told Carlin that his report and his comments would not see the light of day because "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."
As the scientific case for carbon caps and other costly steps to combat global warming weakens, the push to pass something accelerates. Proponents want to pass laws before the case for them evaporates. The opposite should happen. We should slow down and gather more data before taking improvident steps that could devastate our economy without helping the environment.
More...
FROM-New Hampshire Union Leader
Warm skepticism: Jury out on climate change
On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a draconian bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme that, by the Heritage Foundation's estimate, would slow the economy to such a degree that it would cost each American household nearly $7,000 by 2035. The House did so under the false premise that there is a scientific "consensus" that global warming a) is man-made and b) will destroy the planet.
Actually, as the letter signed by more than 100 scientists and printed on the opposite page shows, there is no such thing as a scientific consensus on those points. Many climate scientists disagree with the conventional wisdom that the earth is warming at a dangerous rate because of human activity. In fact, recent evidence suggests otherwise. And when one of the Environmental Protection Agency's own officials tried to point that out this spring, he was silenced.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute last week released a series of internal e-mails between EPA economist Alan Carlin and his boss, Al McGartland, director of the National Center for Environmental Economics. Carlin had written a report concluding that the EPA's position on climate change relied heavily on conclusions by outside groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that the EPA did not conduct its own review of that research. His report concluded that the IPCC conclusions, on which last week's cap-and-trade bill were based, were outdated and that more recent research suggests that there is no need to immediately pass legislation designed to reduce man-made carbon emissions.
What did the "transparent" and "open" Obama administration do with his report? It suppressed it. Not only that, McGartland silenced Carlin, writing in an e-mail to him, "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of NCEE on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."
In another e-mail, McGartland told Carlin that his report and his comments would not see the light of day because "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."
As the scientific case for carbon caps and other costly steps to combat global warming weakens, the push to pass something accelerates. Proponents want to pass laws before the case for them evaporates. The opposite should happen. We should slow down and gather more data before taking improvident steps that could devastate our economy without helping the environment.
More...
No comments:
Post a Comment