Revisionist Science

[Rokenn]

Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on Climate Change

So nice to see science take a back seat to politics [img]smile.gif[/img]

Excerpt:

The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs. -snip- The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems. Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion. -snip- An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change." -snip- Last September, an annual E.P.A. report on air pollution that for six years had contained a section on climate was released without one, and the decision to delete it was made by Bush administration appointees at the agency with White House approval.

[Timber Loftis]

In related news, New England states have joined to sue EPA for not creating CO2 air quality standards.

[Chewbacca]

The way some of these goverment people act, I'm surpised they haven't tried to convince us that nuclear weapons don't spread radiation and that arsenic is an acceptable food-supplement for the poor and should replace food stamps.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: -snip- that arsenic is an acceptable food-supplement for the poor and should replace food stamps.

The food industry is actually ahead of the government in that regard. One of them filed a lawsuit a couple of years back saying that since salmonella was a naturally occuring organism that the government had no right in trying to stop them from selling chicken contaminated with it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: -snip- that arsenic is an acceptable food-supplement for the poor and should replace food stamps.

The food industry is actually ahead of the government in that regard. One of them filed a lawsuit a couple of years back saying that since salmonella was a naturally occuring organism that the government had no right in trying to stop them from selling chicken contaminated with it [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Wow. I'm literally speechless. Thanks for reminding me that goverment is good for something... assuming the food industry lost.

[IronDragon]

The food industry is actually ahead of the government in that regard. One of them filed a lawsuit a couple of years back saying that since salmonella was a naturally occuring organism that the government had no right in trying to stop them from selling chicken contaminated with it

All chickens have salmonella already in them, it is naturally occurring. Government wants chicken ( and all food) irradiated with plutonium and that is what the fight was really about

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: The food industry is actually ahead of the government in that regard. One of them filed a lawsuit a couple of years back saying that since salmonella was a naturally occuring organism that the government had no right in trying to stop them from selling chicken contaminated with it

All chickens have salmonella already in them, it is naturally occurring. Government wants chicken ( and all food) irradiated with plutonium and that is what the fight was really about [/QUOTE]Yes in their intestinal tracts, poor slaughtering and sanitary conditions in slaughterhouses allows it to contaminate the meat on your table.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: In related news, New England states have joined to sue EPA for not creating CO2 air quality standards.

What I would have liked to see in related news is EPA sued for lack of intelligence.

Rokenn, EPA is not science per se. They base their works on other scientists work. Of course from what I have seen they select about 2% of the research that serves their purpose and then change some words around. Don't look at that as science.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: In related news, New England states have joined to sue EPA for not creating CO2 air quality standards.

What I would have liked to see in related news is EPA sued for lack of intelligence.

Rokenn, EPA is not science per se. They base their works on other scientists work. Of course from what I have seen they select about 2% of the research that serves their purpose and then change some words around. Don't look at that as science. [/QUOTE]I disagree, Willow. The EPA has its own scientists and consultants. While not perfect, its people, legal and scientific, tend to be some of the more well-informed folks I come across in my work. If you want to get really frustrated by poor professionalism, try dealing with the state mini-EPA agencies.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: In related news, New England states have joined to sue EPA for not creating CO2 air quality standards.

What I would have liked to see in related news is EPA sued for lack of intelligence.

Rokenn, EPA is not science per se. They base their works on other scientists work. Of course from what I have seen they select about 2% of the research that serves their purpose and then change some words around. Don't look at that as science. [/QUOTE]Your opinion. But given that the EPA report is inline with current scientific consensus on climate change I think it is much more then 2%.