EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

**Mergie Master** · 07-01-2009, 01:18 PM

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

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."

Link to article...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06...y5117890.shtml

**Fish** · 07-01-2009, 07:36 PM

Of course they did. They're in the tank bigger than shit for the liberal agenda.

I wish everyone could experience, if only for a day, the stupid buttfucking environmental idiots I have to deal with daily regarding erosion control, dewatering, turbidity, etc, etc, etc. They're a joke.

**MattB** · 07-01-2009, 07:41 PM

Soooo, lets just pollute to our hearts desire and then our kids will have no clean anything left? Sure some environmentalists are rediculous, but people with they're head up their ass who don't see the shit in the rivers and along highways don't deserve to to breathe what clean air is left.

**Fish** · 07-01-2009, 09:05 PM

Nobody said anything about polluting to our heart's desire, you stupid fucking hippie wannabe.

**Mergie Master** · 07-01-2009, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by MattB

Soooo, lets just pollute to our hearts desire and then our kids will have no clean anything left? Sure some environmentalists are rediculous, but people with they're head up their ass who don't see the shit in the rivers and along highways don't deserve to to breathe what clean air is left.

It's one thing to keep a clean environment. It's something totally different when you pass laws, create taxes, take people's liberties, and dictate what people can drive or how they light their houses, all based on not only bad science but outright lies.

No one was talking about pollution, we are talking about something that doesn't exist Global Warming.

And with this cap & trade crap you won't have to worry about your kids having to deal with polluted water, hell they won't have enough money to go to the lakes.

**MattB** · 07-02-2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Fish

Nobody said anything about polluting to our heart's desire, you stupid fucking hippie wannabe.

Well if you do away with the regulators, which you so hate, thats what you will get, dipshit. They're there to balance out with the people like you who only care about your poor little inconvenience.

Pussy.

**Fish** · 07-02-2009, 06:02 PM

You sure straightened me out.

**knuckledraggineantherhal** · 07-02-2009, 06:03 PM

you gonna take that shit mergie???

**knuckledraggineantherhal** · 07-02-2009, 06:04 PM

I mean fish....oops

**knuckledraggineantherhal** · 07-02-2009, 08:06 PM

GLOW

SHIT RULES!!!!

**Fish** · 07-03-2009, 06:56 AM

Its not such a matter of "taking it" really. I'm just not interested in arguing with this mindless fuckwit. What this idiot doesn't understand (or does understand and dismisses it because he's a proponent of big, intrusive government) is that my gripe is directed at big, intrusive government gone wild. Since when has the government (local, state or federal) utilized common sense measures for anything?

If you don't believe me, dig up any set of CFR's (try OSHA) and start reading. First thing you'll find is that you can't stay awake. The second thing you'll find is that any given real world application will to some degree violate certain parts of any given CFR. And why is this? Because some asshole bureaucrat with no real world experience wrote them and then goes about the task of enforcing them.

Unfortunately, in the construction world, we end up quite often dealing with idealists who are anti-growth, tree-hugging, "quiet" activists. They internally enjoy saying "no" for the single purpose of delaying a project. Its a bad combination and it adds unnecessary burden to the contractor and additional costs to the end consumer.

And there's NOTHING wrong with being a consumer. I'm a huge consumer of fossil fuels and my carbon footprint is gigantic. Almost as big as Al Gore's.

**CWPINST** · 07-04-2009, 09:47 AM

Part of the problem with this Global Warming BS are the underlying assumptions that (A), it is not a natural cycle and (B) Man is certainly the cause of it. (neither has been proven BTW). Of course when you decide that it is not a natural cycle, you then have to place the blame somewhere......which the democRATs are good at.......as long as it is not them to blame.

The real rub that I have with this whole argument is that we have eliminated some really beneficial products to mankind in our knee jerk reaction to this pseudoscience. Take Halon for example. It is one of the best fire extinguishing substances ever to be developed, and it is relatively harmless to humans. At work, we have been forced to get rid of it. Most of the substitutes are not nearly as effective and are very hazardous to people.

Another example is R12 Freon. No automotive air conditioner has worked as well as when we were using this stuff. I once had a 89 Toyota truck with this type of A/C. You could sit at idle in the sun on a 100 degree day and get goose bumps with that A/C on high. Nothing has worked as well since. There are many other examples.

I have no problem with eliminating products that are PROVEN to be detrimental to our environment, as long as their elimination is an overall net gain and it can be shown that we can't keep them from getting in the environment in quantities that are detrimental. However I do have a problem with wholesale elimination of beneficial products just give the appearance that we are doing "something".

Most politicians haven't fought hard over this because it would have too easy to get labeled as anti-environment. As a result, everyone looses just so the liberals can feel good about their flawed cause.

**MattB** · 07-04-2009, 10:53 AM

For not wanting to argue with me, this "fuckwit", you certainly wrote quite a long winded statement.

Ya'll have advanced my argument that you only care about your own inconvenience, i.e. the goosebumps on your arm during 100 degree heat.

**Fish** · 07-04-2009, 03:13 PM

Oh goody, another liberal asshole who thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

Please do explain how anyone has advanced your argument. And if you intend on using science to back up any statements, be sure to provide the sources.

**MattB** · 07-04-2009, 03:33 PM

Someone said they like their truck a/c to give them goosebumps in 100 degree heat. Not scolling up to see who.

http://epic.awi.de/epic/Main?static=...ry_dn=Chu2001a

Here's one abstract, working on another. Because I'm at work, I don't have access to the full article. Others to follow...

**MattB** · 07-04-2009, 03:34 PM

"If greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilised, sea level would nonetheless continue to rise for hundreds of years. After 500 years, sea-level rise from thermal expansion may have reached only half of its eventual level, which models suggest may lie within ranges of 0.5 to 2.0 m and 1 to 4 m for CO2 levels twice and four times pre-industrial, respectively."

**MattB** · 07-04-2009, 03:37 PM

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture01286.html

I think that Harvard is a pretty reputable source.

**MattB** · 07-04-2009, 03:38 PM

"Here, we explore these differences, apply diverse analyses to more than 1,700 species, and show that recent biological trends match climate change predictions. Global meta-analyses documented significant range shifts averaging 6.1 km per decade towards the poles (or metres per decade upward), and significant mean advancement of spring events by 2.3 days per decade."