The Arrogance of the Warmers

[daveman]

correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.

It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud. It's 97% of climatologists.

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're wrong. You just have a narrow body saying they're not sure if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.

Climate models rely heavily on statistics.

Can you point to any statisticians working for climate scientists?

 

[daveman]

For my part, it was not the "well funded anti science" crowd that made me question the AGW Alarm Machine. It was the AGW Alarm Machine that made me question it. Too much hyperbole and too little actual results.

Same same. I don't question AGW because I pay attention to the BIGOIL boogeyman -- I question AGW because AGW proponents have failed to make their case convincingly, because they're not embracing the open and questioning nature of science, and because they're driven more by a political agenda than they are by science itself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers still cannot point to one single laboratory experiment that even comes close to demonstrating their central thesis: that a wisp of CO2 will melt the glacier and turn the oceans acidic

 

[Bfgrn]

If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument. The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument. The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect. Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

For my part, it was not the "well funded anti science" crowd that made me question the AGW Alarm Machine. It was the AGW Alarm Machine that made me question it. Too much hyperbole and too little actual results.

On one of the Sunday talk shows probably 10 years ago, one of the panelists stated that 0.7 degrees of warming in 2000 years was not cause for panic but was, rather, a record of astonishing stability. That made me think. Anyone thinking is the enemy of a zealot.

If there is a well funded anti science anything that is putting forth a propaganda program, it must be so subtle as to be unnoticable. Care to provide an example?

As far as the threat of the EPA not doing anything and being toothless due to Bush, will you never tire of this tired and pointless blame Bush routine. Please give examples of what you are talking about. An example from Indiana would be a good one so I could check it out.

Title: THE "ECHO CHAMBER" APPROACH TO ADVOCACY
Organization Author: PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES INC

The Kochs' Climate Change Denial Media Machine

Buying a Movement

Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

As lifelong Republicans who have worked for decades to protect and restore clean air and clean water, we find the turning back of the environmental clock by this administration profoundly disturbing. And New Hampshire suffers from these backward policies.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Bush administration's widespread rejection of sound science. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nationwide organization of eminent scientists declared: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions."More recently, 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists wrote in an open letter to the American people that the administration "has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

There was no mandate in the 2000 election to weaken and undo our environmental and public health protections. In this year's election, environmental policy needs a full public debate.

We do not believe that turning back the clock or simply maintaining the status quo is a sufficient response for the road ahead. The candidates should do at least as well in responding to the planet's realities in 2004 as Richard Nixon did in 1970.

How do the candidates propose to slow global climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil? How will their environmental policies protect our children's health and America's natural resources that are vital to the health of our economy?

These are issues the candidates must address. The American people deserve nothing less.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

For my part, it was not the "well funded anti science" crowd that made me question the AGW Alarm Machine. It was the AGW Alarm Machine that made me question it. Too much hyperbole and too little actual results.

On one of the Sunday talk shows probably 10 years ago, one of the panelists stated that 0.7 degrees of warming in 2000 years was not cause for panic but was, rather, a record of astonishing stability. That made me think. Anyone thinking is the enemy of a zealot.

If there is a well funded anti science anything that is putting forth a propaganda program, it must be so subtle as to be unnoticable. Care to provide an example?

As far as the threat of the EPA not doing anything and being toothless due to Bush, will you never tire of this tired and pointless blame Bush routine. Please give examples of what you are talking about. An example from Indiana would be a good one so I could check it out.

Title: THE "ECHO CHAMBER" APPROACH TO ADVOCACY
Organization Author: PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES INC

The Kochs' Climate Change Denial Media Machine

Buying a Movement

Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

As lifelong Republicans who have worked for decades to protect and restore clean air and clean water, we find the turning back of the environmental clock by this administration profoundly disturbing. And New Hampshire suffers from these backward policies.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Bush administration's widespread rejection of sound science. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nationwide organization of eminent scientists declared: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions."More recently, 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists wrote in an open letter to the American people that the administration "has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

There was no mandate in the 2000 election to weaken and undo our environmental and public health protections. In this year's election, environmental policy needs a full public debate.

We do not believe that turning back the clock or simply maintaining the status quo is a sufficient response for the road ahead. The candidates should do at least as well in responding to the planet's realities in 2004 as Richard Nixon did in 1970.

How do the candidates propose to slow global climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil? How will their environmental policies protect our children's health and America's natural resources that are vital to the health of our economy?

These are issues the candidates must address. The American people deserve nothing less.

Shill

 

[daveman]

Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.

You mean like the IPCC?

 

[daveman]

Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.

You mean like the IPCC?

That and the million-plus Hansen's made in violation of Federal ethics rules.

But, hey, extremism in the defense of extremism is no vice, or something like that.

Right, USMB lefties?

 

[IanC]

the people who think the antialarmist sceptics are antiscience havent actually examined the the peer reviewed papers or informational blogs of the promenent leaders. of course it is only possible to prove something is wrong and impossible to prove something is 'incontrovertable' but the sceptics have repeatedly shown serious mistakes in published climate science that is used to make public policy. anyone who is interested in following the climate change debate should at least read Real Climate and Climate Audit. they both have input from scientists on both sides of the fence. I also like Bishop Hill and Watts Up With That for day-to-day topical stories, Climate Etc for the lukewarmer's position and SkepticalScience for the pro-CAGW position. once you listen to the many sides of the issues you will no longer believe it is as simple as believing one side or the other

 

[IndependntLogic]

We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.

The speed of light, c, might not be the upper limit for travel in the physical world, but the idea that mankind's almost imperceptible change in Earth atmosphere is causing "Global Warming" is "Settled science"?

Do you see why I laugh at the Warmers? Where do you find such arrogance and ignorance?

This is an area in which I have no problem confessing my ignorance on a subject. As far as I know, it's still referred to as a theory but I'm sure many feel more strongly about it. The scientific community seems to overwhelmingly agree it is a valid theory. I know lots of scientists because of my work and I haven't met one who doesn't seem sure of it. But here's where I get my biggest doubt: remember that volcano in Iceland? MSNBC was covering it and they said it caused more CO2 in a week than every car in South America would create in a year. Hmmm.
I just don't know.

 

[IanC]

We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.

The speed of light, c, might not be the upper limit for travel in the physical world, but the idea that mankind's almost imperceptible change in Earth atmosphere is causing "Global Warming" is "Settled science"?

Do you see why I laugh at the Warmers? Where do you find such arrogance and ignorance?

This is an area in which I have no problem confessing my ignorance on a subject. As far as I know, it's still referred to as a theory but I'm sure many feel more strongly about it. The scientific community seems to overwhelmingly agree it is a valid theory. I know lots of scientists because of my work and I haven't met one who doesn't seem sure of it. But here's where I get my biggest doubt: remember that volcano in Iceland? MSNBC was covering it and they said it caused more CO2 in a week than every car in South America would create in a year. Hmmm.
I just don't know.

there is no doubt that CO2 does cause some change, how could it not? whether it is a trivial, substantial or overwhelming factor is a different question. denying catastropic climate change is also difficult if there is even a trivial chance that it might happen. it is easier and more conducive to a scientific career to not make waves over an issue that may not help you but can certainly cause harm to your career.

 

[Bfgrn]

Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.

If AGW wasn't happening, would climatologists be selling shoes, or still working at their profession?

These scientists are not getting rich.

 

[IanC]

Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.

If AGW wasn't happening, would climatologists be selling shoes, or still working at their profession?

These scientists are not getting rich.

there certainly wouldnt be as many positions available in AGW fields. I dont know many people that would produce results that would make their job redundant either.

 

[gslack]

Glad to see oldsocks brought back bfgrn... Another PR troll with nothing but an agenda and a willingness to cry...

 

[westwall]

It is not a scientific memo, it does not present scientific facts, it is a Strategies and Tactics memo by big oil industries that make billions polluting our planet. It is a PR plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is a plan to CREATE doubt for personal gain at the expense of the environment. And to create a team of paid deniers. "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach"

The campaign strategy was based on the creation of uncertainty and doubt. It would “develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science”. This approach draws heavily on the methods used in the earlier campaign by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the smoking-cancer link.

In fact, the same people were often involved in both the tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. For example, Steve Milloy is listed as a member of the Global Climate Science Communications Team, and he is listed as a contributor to the API action plan. Steve Milloy and his Advancement of Sound Science Coalition were heavily involved in the tobacco campaign as well.

Who was paying? Who was getting paid? A few excerpts from the API memo provide several of the answers:

GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American Petroleum Institute.
[...]
Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members.

Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute , Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.

If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument. The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument. The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect. Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

I suggest you look at the history of MTBE sometime. We warned everybody that it was a terrible thing to put in the gasoline and yet you guys were the "experts" and rammed it down the throats of of the Californians.

The result? Poisoned water wells all over the state that will not be useable for at least 100 years. WE were correct. Not you. If you had listened to us billions of dollars would not have been wasted, and lost because you idiots couldn't be bothered to do proper science.

YOUR TRACK RECORD AS REGARDS SCIENCE IS ONE OF ABJECT AND TOTAL FAILURE.

 

[westwall]

correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.

It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud. It's 97% of climatologists.

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're wrong. You just have a narrow body saying they're not sure if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.

Here's a report from the EPA saying that their own study was flawed. This is the type of study that your group is using. And you wish to use known bad scientific studies as the basis for regulations. That's like using a study that says smoking is actually good for you for your arguments to mandate that people have to smoke.

Get it?


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=e0584e33-d3da-4fba-b95a-e93548105e09

 

[westwall]

Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.

If AGW wasn't happening, would climatologists be selling shoes, or still working at their profession?

These scientists are not getting rich.

Actually some of them are. mann, Jones, Hansen et all have made millions off of the fraud. I havn't. I havn't made one thin dime from big oil.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem with warmists is that they need continual lies to support their claims. Like mapmakers who had maps reflect loss of ice mass in Greenland when it wasn't true.

Mapmakers' claim on shape of Greenland suddenly melts away - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

According to promotional material for the 13th edition of the atlas, this provides "concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet for ever – and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate."

However, scientists at the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, which investigates climate change in the Arctic and is headed by the revered glaciologist Julian Dowdeswell, have asserted that the publisher's claims are flawed.

"Recent satellite images of Greenland make it clear that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands," the Institute said in a letter to Harper Collins, made public yesterday.

"We do not know why this error has occurred, but it is regrettable that the claimed drastic reduction in the extent of ice in Greenland has created headline news around the world... There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature."

The arrogance of the warmists is that they expect their falsities to be accepted as truth.

 

[code1211]

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

For my part, it was not the "well funded anti science" crowd that made me question the AGW Alarm Machine. It was the AGW Alarm Machine that made me question it. Too much hyperbole and too little actual results.

On one of the Sunday talk shows probably 10 years ago, one of the panelists stated that 0.7 degrees of warming in 2000 years was not cause for panic but was, rather, a record of astonishing stability. That made me think. Anyone thinking is the enemy of a zealot.

If there is a well funded anti science anything that is putting forth a propaganda program, it must be so subtle as to be unnoticable. Care to provide an example?

As far as the threat of the EPA not doing anything and being toothless due to Bush, will you never tire of this tired and pointless blame Bush routine. Please give examples of what you are talking about. An example from Indiana would be a good one so I could check it out.

Title: THE "ECHO CHAMBER" APPROACH TO ADVOCACY
Organization Author: PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES INC

The Kochs' Climate Change Denial Media Machine

Buying a Movement

Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

As lifelong Republicans who have worked for decades to protect and restore clean air and clean water, we find the turning back of the environmental clock by this administration profoundly disturbing. And New Hampshire suffers from these backward policies.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Bush administration's widespread rejection of sound science. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nationwide organization of eminent scientists declared: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions."More recently, 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists wrote in an open letter to the American people that the administration "has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

There was no mandate in the 2000 election to weaken and undo our environmental and public health protections. In this year's election, environmental policy needs a full public debate.

We do not believe that turning back the clock or simply maintaining the status quo is a sufficient response for the road ahead. The candidates should do at least as well in responding to the planet's realities in 2004 as Richard Nixon did in 1970.

How do the candidates propose to slow global climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil? How will their environmental policies protect our children's health and America's natural resources that are vital to the health of our economy?

These are issues the candidates must address. The American people deserve nothing less.

You're kidding, right? Links to political propaganda sites and then an article that works EXACTLY the same way as the Global Warming scam:

Mention something, anything, it doesn'nt matter what, then mention the target of the smear, then detail a laundry list of terrible hazards that could happen, but in the real world have not happened.

You are holding an empty basket. What did you imagine might be inside of it?

 

[daveman]

Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.

If AGW wasn't happening, would climatologists be selling shoes, or still working at their profession?

These scientists are not getting rich.

Thanks for proving my point.