I think it's been changed to climate change now
And yeah I'm worried
It's not even that.
It's "Climate Disruption."
Because there is no warming trend. There never was. The "Warming" was and always has been extrapolated from models that claimed to compensate for 'urban heat islands' with no scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of the models.
The Antarctic Ice Sheet has actually been expanding. The Arctic ice sheet melted some between 2004 and 2006 due to winds that were pressuring the sheet into the warm ocean currents, but rapidly regained twice the estimated melt mass in the following years. I believe the same condition is currently causing it to melt.
This story, from not all that long ago, illustrates just how hilarious the whole affair has become:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
It's just a barrel of monkeys.
The fact of the matter is that there is pollution, yes. There are negative impacts we have upon the environment, and it is important to see to responsible production.
The reality is, however, that the whole system has become highly politicized:
You must be registered for see links
It is easy to read that and get the impression that the agenda is -against- climate research, but when you look at the individual reports and the context, the problem is that the whole of EPA research is being compromised. The scientists aren't supposed to be there for political agendas or to make/decide regulations, they are merely there to analyze and assess.
As one report read:
"As an alternative to Clear Skies, Senators
Thomas Carper (D-DE), Judd Gregg (R-NH),
Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Lincoln Chafee
(R-RI) proposed a measure to control carbon
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides
in addition to mercury. The EPA evaluated
this proposal, but withheld its analysis from
the senators. Several months before the EPA
finally released its evaluation, an internal
agency briefing was leaked to the
Washing
-
ton Post
(Gugliotta and Pianin 2003). In the
briefing, the EPA concluded that the Senate
proposal would cut the three pollutants
earlier and more deeply than the Clear Skies
Act, result in 17,800 fewer expected deaths
by 2020, and reduce carbon dioxide emis
-
sions at “negligible” cost to industry. EPA staff
members recounted that at a May 2003 meet-
ing on the unreleased report, Jeffrey Holm
-
stead, then administrator of the agency’s
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), asked, “How
can we justify Clear Skies if this gets out?”
Holmstead has since stated that he did not
“recall making any specific remarks” (Lee 2003)."
Which is why these types of sentiments exist:
You must be registered for see links
And, honestly, being a Libertarian, I think that if we have an EPA - it should be simply as a public research service and should have no regulatory power. Though, realistically, I don't think that is necessary. IEEE and ISO have become industry standards for workplace safety and process validity without any government endorsement.
Honestly, the politicization of the EPA is precisely why it should not be a government institution to begin with. But that's another thing.