They are certainly going out of their way to please the alarmunists.
http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23....
Here is a group of real scientists, doing their job. The warmers might want to take a gander. Guess what warmers... You might notice that the person does not make claims that are not supported directly by the data. You see warmers, this is actually how you conduct science.
Hobbit,
What is not clear is where Coal gets subsidies. I keep hearing the political clap-trap that oil and coal are getting subsidies, and I entirely agree they should not.
BUT when I search for the subsidies the libs are talking about, they are not subsidies at all. For example, the oil company can claim as a tax write-off, the amount spent on finding new sources of oil. EVERY company is able to write-off their operating expenses including R&D. That is not a subsidy, but libs called it a subsidy. Further, there have been some subsidies granted for retrofitting scrubbers for cleaner coal power, but I don't really think a liberal should whine about this. So what are these subsidies?
Edit:
Here is the sick thing. If there is a decrease in cold-related deaths, they will claim AGW, but not mention it as a benefit of AGW. If there is an increase in cold-related deaths, they will claim climate change, but they probably will not mention it, lest they give people reason to question.
This is how biased the EPA is. They only want to show heat-related deaths and leave out cold-related deaths, because it is a no-win situation for the libs.
These are the types of "solutions" that we can expect for "global warming". You can't expect to see science. What you get is pure political propaganda and science and fact are their enemy. You will also notice that they didn't chart cold related deaths. Hobbits don't mind this sort of distortion because it helps propagate their mythical world. In the real world crap like this has costs.
By the way, my hand was raised high but it slowed my typing considerably. My grade was WTF
Edit: With some socialists, there is never a cost to implement their policies. It is always offset by some fantasized savings. They pull out $8 from one of their bodily orifices and suggest it will save us $8 of those smelly bills for each $1 it costs and we are supposed to just accept that as gospel. Then Hobbit furthers that line of reasoning assuring us that we just need to stop subsidizing coal to level the playing field (again WTF), continuing to promote public awareness (e.g. promote propaganda to push your petty political agenda), and finally to "invest" in green technology. Shall we "invest" in "green" technology like Solyndra? How about just letting it survive if it is fit?
There is no scientist in the EPA just politions and busybodies .The EPA page is fiction anyways and if you read the Email thing they dont bother with any opinion they dont agree with.
It goes against the AGW religon
Amazing
Amazing, do you really understand how biased you are? You're so used to misleading graphs from deniers that you think that's are the right way to do things. You reward honesty by attacking it--what a bizarro world you live in!
For comparison, check out recent "temperature" plots shown by graphicconception in one of his answers--I put temperature in quotes because he shows plots that have no labels on the axes at all, so you have no idea of the scale.
EDIT: You said "Great, we have an honest killer. " What a stupid comment. You're comparing correctly labeling a graph with homicide. What an idiot you are.
The difference is in the details of the statistics. The EPA data is for May-June and comes from the CDC. Here's the underlying CDC/EPA dataset:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml...
although it's not expressed as a per capita rate. These data suggest an increase in mortality over the last decade.
In contrast, the paper you cite restricts the analysis to June-August and uses a different database. It isn't clear to me that the mortality reporting statistics for NMMAPS is the same as that which CDC uses. Especially since NMMAPS was designed to study the effects of air pollution, not heat stress, on mortality.
The environmental public health literature is rich in recent years with papers investigating the relative role of air pollution, PM 2.5 and ozone, for instance, and heat stress on excess mortality. I invite you to explore that subject area on your own with a few simple google searches. But of course, you won't, because you might learn something, namely, that the link between heat and mortality is fairly convincing, but that the data are noisy and it is entirely reasonable to get different results depending on how you attribute cause of death.
not everyone sees the graph as a conspiracy. I'm sure WUWT does.
My grade would be "A" -- and before I retired I taught at a top-tier technical university.
Why? It is VERY common for a writer to have data from different sources that are not easily compared. Including ALL of the data -- with appropriate notes such as this report contains -- meets the highest standards of scholarship -- and ethics.
As for the Obama/EPA proposal to mandate a 30 percent cut in emissions by 2030: the EPA data is probably sound up to a point -- but it's based on a notion that the government can force a change of that scale without unforeseen side effects. If it is, it'd be the first time in history. Overarching mandates like that ALWAYS have unintended consequences.
A better policy, in my view, is to"
1_ start dismantling the regulatory and subsidy structure that gives coal companies an edge in the market (subsidies to coal companies, in one form or another, amount to billions of YOUR tax money each year -- a lot more than the subsidies alternative energy firms get). That will level the playing field for competing energy sources such as solar and wind energy.
2) continue to support research and promote public awareness -- but not just about climate change. In the past, alternative energy and energy efficiency were a lot more costly than they are now -- and the cost continues to fall. If people actually knew just how many real (read: save money) advantages there are, it would do more to cut emissions than the government mandate ever will.
3) another aspect of point 2: oppontnts keep picturing "green" technology and policy as a cost. It isn't -- it is an investment that will pay off and the hard numbers are there to prove it will pay off. Yet the EPA -- and Obama -- are still buying into the"it's a cost" error. They need to wake up and smell the coffee just as much as the right-wing does.
4) Regulations -- when used -- need to be focused, limited and based on solid policy research. That's not the case here. For example, setting maximum emission standards for new equipment may make good sense. This mandate will require firms to scrap a lot of equipment before it has reached the end of it's useful life. That's expensive. Especially since by 2030 coal is going to be at a competitive disadvantage across the board vs. alternative energy -- it already is in some sectors. The net result will be to increase costs in the short-term without any real long term benefit because coal is going to start phasing out by 2030 anyway.
The bright side to this policy: it will accelerate conversion to alternative energy -- and that will SAVE consumers money in the long run (at least those who make the conversion). NOTE re those who argue alternative energy is more expensive than coal: that USED to be true. It is not true now. Currently the costs are close -- it really depends on where you live. Long before 2030, solar and wind will be cheaper anywhere.That's not a government claim -- I'm basing it on the actual costs, financial analysis and what's in the technology pipeline -- all ow which is available on the Internet from corporate and NGO sources.
NOTE: Hopefully the above is clear -- I know I summarized a lot of material .
The EPA has a web page on heat related deaths. They don't say these are on the rise but the graph they post sure implies just that: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/health-society/heat-deaths.html
You may wonder why there is a gap and this is explained in the footnote where they also caution: "As a result, data from earlier than 1999 cannot easily be compared with data from 1999 and later."
So what the EPA did is go ahead and put the two different data sets on the same graph and tell you they are not easily compared. I guess what you really should do is put your hand over one side and evaluate and then put your hand over the other and evaluate.
Maybe then you'd arrive at reality:
"This study provides strong evidence that acute (e.g., same-day) heat-related mortality risk has declined over time in the US, even in more recent years." http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2014/4/ehp.1307392.pdf
If that EPA web page was a first year science project, what would your grade be?
