What coverups?

What an inane question. Climate theory is composed of thousands of studies done by thousands of researchers over the past nearly 200 years. It started in the 1820's when Joseph Fourier discovered that the Earth was warmer than it should be through simple black-body radiative rules. In the late 1850's John Tyndall quantified the radiative properties of many gases including greenhouse gases such as water vapor, CO2 and methane. In the 1890's Svante Arrhenius quantified the relationship between CO2 and temperatures. In the 1950's the US Air Force did intense studies of CO2's radiative effects while developing heat seeking missiles. Also in the 1950's Gilbert Plass published several papers on the subject including one titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change". Since then it's just continued building. That anthropogenic global warming is occurring is just an emergent property of looking the implications of all of those studies.

I'm still waiting for the anti-AGW'ers to produce anything like that scientific body of work.

That's a pretty generic accusation. I think you need to get more specific. Over the history of the EPA the regulations it has imposed have had a far more positive effect on the nations economy than negative.

I specifically called out your statement:

I specifically asked you for examples where the EPA didn't disclose their sources or where the data from those studies wasn't available.

The subject was AGW studies.

That was just plain hilarious.

Can you cite an instance where that isn't the case already? As far as I can see it's all based on openly published peer reviewed science although you may have to go through an additional layer like the IPCC WG1 report to get to the original source.

The problem isn't the level so much as the rate it's changing. If CO2 rose to 800 ppm over 5,000-10,000 years it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

I know of at least 3 rightist scientists who would laugh at your characterization of climate science being fused with leftist ideology.

I'd like you to point out at least a couple of instances where that isn't true of the EPA's findings already.

But go ahead - tell me how global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of thousands of scientists around the world for political reasons. [snicker]

This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.

So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?

We could be there 50 years and still have no hope of stabilizing the situation (maybe if we just installed another dictator like Saddam). Stabilizing is not something we can impose but is something they'll have to work out internally.

The middle class has been fading ever since Reagan was President. It's a product of supply side economics and the emphasis on the wealthy and the demonization of unions. The rich keep getting richer leaving less money available for the rest of us.

Ah... You apparently believe that climate scientists are "cooking" the numbers for nefarious reasons. The reasons and methods for the adjustments are all out in the open although it takes some scientific knowledge to understand them. Here is an explanation from Berkeley Earth about their data set and filtering. Everything they do there is out in the open.

So I await your scientifically based reasons not to accept the current adjusted temperature data sets.

No one has done that and even if you took the raw unadjusted data and used that the results wouldn't be much different than using adjusted data.