Reason for a New Age

  • About

    What you will expect to see here are discussions of politics and tangentially economics. This blog will do its best to present a rational look at the world of today, how the modern world came into place, and the issues that are currently being discussed in the public realm.
  • January 2010
    S M T W T F S
        Feb »
  • Meta

  • Advertisements

About Climate Change – Part 2

Posted by publius2point0 on 2010/01/06

Again, preferring to avoid any direct analysis about the merits/demerits of either side of the global warming debate, I’d like to take a look at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In part 1, I made it an assumption that any governmental body will prefer to prove the existence of anthropogenic climate change. In truth, though, this is incorrect at least in regards to the EPA.

The EPA was created in 1970 under the auspices of Republican president, Richard M. Nixon. Since it’s founding, there have been 12 administrators of the organization. Of these, 9 were appointed by Republicans. At least five of them are also, personally, Republican by politics and knowing that I’d venture to guess that all nine who were placed by a Republican president probably were Republican. For 20 of the previous 28 years of the existence of the EPA, its principal leader was most likely a Republican.

In general, one doesn’t assume that a Republican supports the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Most often, you assume the opposite.

Within the US, there are three principal organizations that do research on climate change, the EPA, NASA, and the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The Department of Energy and the USDA sometimes also poke their head in, though they seem to have left this task up to the CCSP and simply report that data as is on their own websites.

The CCSP is, from the name alone, a group that obviously exists expressly for the purpose of studying climate change. If the argument is that they have a financial incentive for there to be such a thing, then the answer is that they probably, indeed, do. If you are wary of dealing with data that could possibly be tilted towards the belief in climate crises, you probably do not want to pay much attention to the CCSP.

NASA is involved because they oversee several of the satellites that collect global data, and because the science of the atmosphere is something that affects them. They use climate modeling software and math to study Mars and Venus and other space bodies known to have an atmosphere. Their instrumental data that they collect is almost certainly to be trusted. Reporting the temperature of the Earth to be different than it is would be too blatant a lie to really be considered, I would think. Similarly, for their climate modeling software to be so vastly different when modeling the Earth as when modeling Mars would require too extreme a desire to act nefariously to be plausible. It is a general purpose climate modeling system. And of course, the employees of NASA are probably not particularly dependent on the existence or non-existence of anthropogenic climate change.

I would say that last same thing about the EPA. They existed previous to worries of global warming with the express purpose of researching the environment. So long as there continues to be an “environment”, they will continue to exist and research it. They had no need to create a crisis, and have no particular reason to be particularly invested in it. I am not sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of their researchers are regular employees, and not dependent on grants.

So while I might distrust that the CCSP will be properly critical of climate worries, with the other two groups, I don’t see any reason to have any such worry.

And of course, I might add, all three of these groups are at least American. I believe that many people think that European and other UN nations will go gung-ho for any politically correct thing essentially because they know that the US will have to refuse, throwing the whole thing to the wayside (giving them an easy out), and painting the US as the bad guy. The actual merit of the thing needn’t matter. So if you are worried by UN reports or British science or any such thing, then I think you might look at what our own country is reporting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: