Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco
I have not had the time and do not have it today to really check this article out , but throw this out for information...
"If the Obama administration gets its way, Americans will not become aware of the scientific evidence: Obama's EPA suppressed the Carlin/Davidson report and tried to keep it secret for political reasons. The emails obtained by the CEI are revealing. Here, the two scientists' superior declines to make their report public because "the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment."
"In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../06/023915.php |
To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear niether of the men are scientists. There paper is basically a review of articles that are for the most part not even peer reviewed.
Is global warming real? I don't know for sure, I strongly suspect our greenhouse gas problems contribute, it is basic chemistry. Still, with good theories on both sides of the fence it can certainly be argued either way. I doubt most intelligent people would argue though that we haven't have dirtied up our world to some extent in the post industrial age. Would be nice to leave things in good shape for our kids and grandkids etc.
The point of this reply is that this "smoking gun" is no different that any number of other politically motivated papers on either side of the argument, perhaps different in that it is not done by scientists, has no real research, and is just a selective review of "un-peer reviewed" papers to a large extent. It did not, by most scientific standards warrant publishing.
To try to lay this off as some Obama administration cover up is ridiculous and simply more political BS and sensationalism from the media and politicians.
Perhaps it is better to put efforts into more real unbiased research and try to find out to what extent we do or do not need to make changes. That this is politicized at all is pretty indicative of peoples priorities.