<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Politicization of EPA: The Administration&#8217;s Radical Endangerment Gamble</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604</link>
	<description>Applications of economics and science for rational public policy by Alan Carlin</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:14:16 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: car insurance</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-3144</link>
		<dc:creator>car insurance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-3144</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s the difference between today&#039;s global-warming models and medieval astrology? Answer: We know which astrological models were correct.  That&#039;s the conclusion of scientist Kanya Kusano in a January report published by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, an Osaka-based professional scientific association. The paper, recently translated into English by British technology news Web site the Register, argues that medieval astrologers confirmed their theories by testing their predictions against celestial events that actually unfolded. Similarly, today&#039;s climate science is so complex that only time -- and a lot more observation -- will tell whether what scientists think they know is really correct.  Until then, the alarmist findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are &quot;an unprovable hypothesis,&quot; Mr. Kusano argues. Two of his colleagues on the five-member panel agree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s the difference between today&#8217;s global-warming models and medieval astrology? Answer: We know which astrological models were correct.  That&#8217;s the conclusion of scientist Kanya Kusano in a January report published by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, an Osaka-based professional scientific association. The paper, recently translated into English by British technology news Web site the Register, argues that medieval astrologers confirmed their theories by testing their predictions against celestial events that actually unfolded. Similarly, today&#8217;s climate science is so complex that only time &#8212; and a lot more observation &#8212; will tell whether what scientists think they know is really correct.  Until then, the alarmist findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are &#8220;an unprovable hypothesis,&#8221; Mr. Kusano argues. Two of his colleagues on the five-member panel agree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: startling insight - StartTags.com</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-3086</link>
		<dc:creator>startling insight - StartTags.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:14:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-3086</guid>
		<description>[...] Elwood Archive Further Insight into the Future Says: ... Mail (will not be published) (required) ...Carlin Economics and Science The Politicization of EPA: The ...Journalists often have very little understanding or insight into issues and many will be biased to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Elwood Archive Further Insight into the Future Says: &#8230; Mail (will not be published) (required) &#8230;Carlin Economics and Science The Politicization of EPA: The &#8230;Journalists often have very little understanding or insight into issues and many will be biased to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hydrolyze</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-2933</link>
		<dc:creator>Hydrolyze</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:10:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-2933</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the useful thoughts!  Still another good article, which is exactly why we come back to all your webpage often!!


JONNIE</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the useful thoughts!  Still another good article, which is exactly why we come back to all your webpage often!!</p>
<p>JONNIE</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Waffeleisen</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-2605</link>
		<dc:creator>Waffeleisen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-2605</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the infos! Your post actually helped me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the infos! Your post actually helped me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-2479</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:33:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-2479</guid>
		<description>I have been looking all over for this! Finally I found your posting on Google.

Thx

&lt;a href=&quot;http://mediachannel.org/level15/2009/12/22/paper-shredder/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hydrolyze&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been looking all over for this! Finally I found your posting on Google.</p>
<p>Thx</p>
<p><a href="http://mediachannel.org/level15/2009/12/22/paper-shredder/" rel="nofollow">Hydrolyze</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William L.</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-1832</link>
		<dc:creator>William L.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:55:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-1832</guid>
		<description>I glad reading your article. Thank you so much for provide nice information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I glad reading your article. Thank you so much for provide nice information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franklin Stephens</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-1791</link>
		<dc:creator>Franklin Stephens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:52:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-1791</guid>
		<description>I wish I would have found your site a long time ago. I found you on Google. Thanks for the great post!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish I would have found your site a long time ago. I found you on Google. Thanks for the great post!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DAMARIS</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-1581</link>
		<dc:creator>DAMARIS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-1581</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been looking all over for this!

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been looking all over for this!</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rabidfox</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-1436</link>
		<dc:creator>rabidfox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-1436</guid>
		<description>Mr Carlin, thank you for you post on this subject.

I don&#039;t believe that the scams are running this EPA effort because, as Jumbo above points out, te scam will eventually be found out and a huge backlash will insue -- unless the Governmental structure has changed so much that the backlash won&#039;t matter.  The watermelon analogy has a &#039;red&#039; center - and this is the Marxists best chance to take over - through Governmental regulatioin, control of our industries and commerce.  

For some reason, Congress has ceded its legislative duties to Administrative agencies.  But they could fight back by eliminating the EPA, which has clearly outlived its usefulness.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr Carlin, thank you for you post on this subject.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe that the scams are running this EPA effort because, as Jumbo above points out, te scam will eventually be found out and a huge backlash will insue &#8212; unless the Governmental structure has changed so much that the backlash won&#8217;t matter.  The watermelon analogy has a &#8216;red&#8217; center &#8211; and this is the Marxists best chance to take over &#8211; through Governmental regulatioin, control of our industries and commerce.  </p>
<p>For some reason, Congress has ceded its legislative duties to Administrative agencies.  But they could fight back by eliminating the EPA, which has clearly outlived its usefulness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jumbo</title>
		<link>http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/604/comment-page-1#comment-1368</link>
		<dc:creator>Jumbo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:56:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=604#comment-1368</guid>
		<description>It may be useful to draw a distinction between the hypothesis of catastrophic global warming owing to CO2 from the hypothesis that the earth&#039;s ozone layer would be eroded away by chloro-fluro-carbons (CFCs).    

The CFC story was more amenable to political use for the simple reason that another chemical could be adopted to replace CFCs.   This may have cost some moola, but would also not have been hugely expensive either.  Once CFCs are banned, no manufacturer has an economic reason to defend them any more.  Thus, it was politically easy to take out CFCs and then spread this internationally via the UN and the Montreal Protocol.   In political terms, its a conveniently tidy narrative.  

One practical problem for those who try to profit from attacking combustion of hydrocarbons yielding CO2 is that electricity is useful and society cannot readily swap it for something else, as with CFCs.  Changing the global energy market is enormously costly.  This is tempting for chaps like Gore looking to make money for themselves and friends by attacking energy suppliers by claiming they are going to destroy the earth.  

But since the earth is NOT going to heat up owing to CO2 levels, the inconvenient truth is the entire plan of attack is ultimately doomed, in political terms.  In the long run, claiming CO2 drives global warming has to be revealed to be absurd.  Its just a matter of when this will be revealed, not if it will be revealed.   

For the farce of CO2 driven Global Warming to have gotten as far as it did must be testimony to:
-- abundant funding giving researchers incentive to find something notable lest their efforts be proven to be unimportant
-- disparagement of normal skepticism
-- using corruption of peer review to exclude balanced views
-- the intrinsic weakness of some human beings, even well educated ones like climate scientists, to distort science so as to serve an agenda of their political favorites and to win personal gains
-- absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Some climate scientists thought they could get away witth twisting data and it would never become known.  

However, the point of this post is that their success was ultimately impossible and their scams would ultimately have to come out.   

This explains the efforts to &quot;rebrand&quot; the cause.   It moved from catastrophic warming to merely the unproveable meaningless idea of &quot;climate change.&quot;  And now some are trying to re-invent it further into energy self-sufficiency, toward which the public is reasonably more sympathetic.   

Many environmental issues have often rested on political control of the media or biased organizations, like UNEP.   In the case of global warming, what has been new in its startling scope, is that the cooking of science enabled control to extend and infect the National Academy of Sciences and leading scientific journals, leading many educated people to assume there was something genuine underlying the Global Warming, science is over, allegations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It may be useful to draw a distinction between the hypothesis of catastrophic global warming owing to CO2 from the hypothesis that the earth&#8217;s ozone layer would be eroded away by chloro-fluro-carbons (CFCs).    </p>
<p>The CFC story was more amenable to political use for the simple reason that another chemical could be adopted to replace CFCs.   This may have cost some moola, but would also not have been hugely expensive either.  Once CFCs are banned, no manufacturer has an economic reason to defend them any more.  Thus, it was politically easy to take out CFCs and then spread this internationally via the UN and the Montreal Protocol.   In political terms, its a conveniently tidy narrative.  </p>
<p>One practical problem for those who try to profit from attacking combustion of hydrocarbons yielding CO2 is that electricity is useful and society cannot readily swap it for something else, as with CFCs.  Changing the global energy market is enormously costly.  This is tempting for chaps like Gore looking to make money for themselves and friends by attacking energy suppliers by claiming they are going to destroy the earth.  </p>
<p>But since the earth is NOT going to heat up owing to CO2 levels, the inconvenient truth is the entire plan of attack is ultimately doomed, in political terms.  In the long run, claiming CO2 drives global warming has to be revealed to be absurd.  Its just a matter of when this will be revealed, not if it will be revealed.   </p>
<p>For the farce of CO2 driven Global Warming to have gotten as far as it did must be testimony to:<br />
&#8211; abundant funding giving researchers incentive to find something notable lest their efforts be proven to be unimportant<br />
&#8211; disparagement of normal skepticism<br />
&#8211; using corruption of peer review to exclude balanced views<br />
&#8211; the intrinsic weakness of some human beings, even well educated ones like climate scientists, to distort science so as to serve an agenda of their political favorites and to win personal gains<br />
&#8211; absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Some climate scientists thought they could get away witth twisting data and it would never become known.  </p>
<p>However, the point of this post is that their success was ultimately impossible and their scams would ultimately have to come out.   </p>
<p>This explains the efforts to &#8220;rebrand&#8221; the cause.   It moved from catastrophic warming to merely the unproveable meaningless idea of &#8220;climate change.&#8221;  And now some are trying to re-invent it further into energy self-sufficiency, toward which the public is reasonably more sympathetic.   </p>
<p>Many environmental issues have often rested on political control of the media or biased organizations, like UNEP.   In the case of global warming, what has been new in its startling scope, is that the cooking of science enabled control to extend and infect the National Academy of Sciences and leading scientific journals, leading many educated people to assume there was something genuine underlying the Global Warming, science is over, allegations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
