Bush Administration edits report on Global Warming

[Oli]

Scientists Denounce Global Warming Report 'Edits'

Public Health Experts Say Edits Represent Censoring of Science

By RAJA JAGADEESAN, M.D. and CARLA WILLIAMS
ABC News Medical Unit
Oct. 25, 2007

Environmental and public health experts overwhelmingly denounced editing by the White House of a federal health agency head's testimony to Congress Tuesday. Significant deletions were made from the testimony, concerning global warming and the potential impact on human health.

The original, unedited testimony presented to Congress by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and obtained by ABC News was 14 pages long, but the White House Office of Management and Budget edited the final version down to a mere six pages.

Scientists and public health organizations called the move "frustrating," "terrible" and "appalling." The edits essentially deleted all sections that referred to climate change as a public health concern -- including the risks of increased food-borne and waterborne diseases, worsening extreme weather events, worsening air pollution and the effect of heat stress on humans.

"Dr. Gerberding is the lead of the premiere public health agency in the U.S.," said Kim Knowlton, a science fellow on global warming and health at the National Resources Defense Council in New York. "It's shocking that she was not allowed to say in a public discussion some of these vital details.

"One has to wonder why was this is so threatening to the White House."

In response to the controversy that followed, White House press secretary Dana Perino stated that the White House Office of Management and Budget redacted the majority of the information on the basis that the science in the testimony did not match the science reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

However, a review of the latest report on climate change issued by the IPCC -- the organization that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore two weeks ago for efforts to educate the public about climate change -- shows that it contains an entire chapter about the human health impacts.

The IPCC report describes in detail how climate change would lead to effects such as heat waves, cold spells, extreme weather events and weather disasters, air pollution, increased infectious diseases, and increased waterborne and vector-borne infectious diseases.

These same effects, listed point-by-point in Gerberding's original CDC testimony, were among the casualties in the edited version.

"The science that Dr. Gerberding was trying to bring forward was based on the IPCC report," Knowlton said. "It's quite stunning that only weeks after that group received the Nobel prize for their work that the White House is deleting scientific statements based on that work. What was cut was the section with the details -- the most detailed sections on the health impact of global warming, including descriptions of the links that are coming out of the IPCC report."

There was overwhelming agreement in the scientific community that the information was in no way alarmist or controversial.

"This is really standard information available to anyone on the issue," said Dale Jamieson, director of environmental studies at New York University. "What was removed was an uncontroversial report of what is currently known and believed about the fact of climate change, its health effects and its likely impacts on the United States."

"All of these [topics] are routinely mentioned in public health coursework across the nation," agreed Dr. Alan Ducatman, a professor of community medicine at the West Virginia University School of Medicine. "Each ? can be found in the pages of leading journals, such as Science and Nature. If anything, they understate the problem."

Censoring the Science
The problem, according to the unedited version of the testimony, is that climate change is likely to have a significant impact on health -- and not only due to heat waves and disease epidemics.

The CDC report highlighted other issues addressed in the IPCC report, including how extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes will cause deaths, large-scale population displacement and contamination of drinking water. Other concerns included how increases in temperatures encourage the formation of ground level ozone, the primary ingredient of smog which can cause permanent lung damage and aggravate chronic lung diseases, such as asthma.

Also, climate change is predicted to alter agriculture, leading to the scarcity of some foods and increases in prices, a concern for the poor in America.

Following the deletion of these details, the remaining parts of the testimony discussed the CDC's preparedness measures -- but seemed to omit what it was they were preparing for.

"The redacted version just is a very strange document. It becomes a kind of recitation of what the CDC does in general," Jamieson said. "It becomes strangely decontextualized once you take out all the [relevant] material."

"We talk of the politicization of science," said Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the UCLA School of Public Health. "In the politicization of this topic -- the science wasn't changed, it was deleted."


Could Edits Hurt Disaster Response?
Public health experts also expressed their fear over the potential impacts of ignoring the deleted sections of the testimony.

"If communities -- states and counties -- aren't given the information and the resources ? if there isn't planning to be prepared for these global warming related disasters, then our governments won't be able to help us," said Knowlton.

Jamieson agreed. "By not informing the public or emphasizing preparedness, you set yourself up for a Katrina-like failure, but on a global scale."

Significant concerns were also raised that damaging the credibility of the CDC could threaten Americans' welfare in the long run.

"We know from previous health threats, for example anthrax, 9/11, and concerns about pandemic influenza, that having a credible and believable voice from our highest officials is the best way to inform the public and get a reasonable response," said Rosenstock.

"If we have antics -- and I mean the word antics -- where we undermine the credibility of the most credible public health official, then we hurt our ability to respond to health threats."

Knowlton also felt that if information is not forthcoming from public officials, Americans may need to educate themselves. "People really need to be reading and learning," she said. "Even if the White House doesn't want them to."


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=3775766&page=1

[trish]

This administration has been anti-science from the get go. National science advisors have always been scientists of note with the respect of all their peers. Well not always. Not when Bush’s appointee had nothing but a bachelors degree and a slavish eagerness to serve the neo-con cause. Bush’s first Surgeon General, was a vet!! Just because he needs a little something to punch up his state of the union address, Bush, without consultation with any experts, without consideration of its effect on any of NASA's current projects, Bush announces we’re going to Mars and directs NASA to make it top priority. The man is a jerk and his administration is a disaster for science, for justice, for our international reputation, for our military, for our cities, for our citizens and for democracy. Wonder why the election season is so early, it because the people can’t wait to get rid of this fucker.

[Oli]

Trish, don't hold back...let us know how you really feel :wink: :wink:

[NewYorker]

Sadly, this is old news. Bush's administration has been doing this for years.

[Caleigh]

What report HAVEN'T they edited beyond recognition?

According to a recent publication of the US House of Representatives, there are "numerous instances where the [Bush] Administration has manipulated the scientific progress and distorted or suppressed scientific findings." [9]
According to the report, the areas where disinformation are spread are global warming, missile defense, stem-cell research, abstinence education, condom use, and wetlands policy.
The means of disinformation used include: Appointing unqualified and biased personnel as advisors and into scientifc committees, including missleading information into Presidential speeches, presenting incorrect information to Congress, altering websites, and suppressing agency reports and scientifc publications.
According to a Nature editorial refering to the Waxman report (ref. below), "Bush committed early on an ideologically driven approach on major issues such as global warming, ballisitc missile defence and stem-cell research."
According to another Nature news message "nearly two dozen Nobel laureates and 40 other leading researchers have signed an angry statement accusing the Bush administration of "misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge". (Nature 427, 663, 19 February 2004)
References
Report by Rep. Henry A. Waxman on Bush Administration; concrete examples of disinformation.
Erika Check: "Bush accused of power abuse over science", Nature (August 2003):424:14, 715.
Editorial: "No way to run a superpower", Nature (August 2003):424:21, 861.
Geoff Brumfiel: "Scientists slam Bush record", Nature, 427, 663, 19 February 2004
Union of Concerned Scientists: "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science"

[hippifried]

Oh well. They can edit away, but all testimony before Congress is published, in its entirety, in the Congressional Record. I believe it's all video recorded nowadays, unless it's classified & held behind closed doors. The administration doesn't get to edit that. Congressmen can extend their remarks within a certain time period, but nobody gets to remove anything.

[SarahG]

Global warming is just a myth anyway.

[Rogers]

Global warming is just a myth anyway.
:what
Of course you're right, SarahG, scientists have been exaggerating for years. :lol:

Rocketing CO2 prompts criticisms of IPCC
24 October 2007
Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are rising faster than any climate models predict, and this has prompted some climate scientists to call for an urgent overhaul of the IPCC.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19626274.800-rocketing-cosub2sub-prompts-criticisms-of-ipcc.html

Arctic melt faster than forecast
4/30/2007
Arctic ice is melting faster than computer models of climate calculate, according to a group of US researchers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6610125.stm

Warming 'opens Northwest Passage'
9/14/2007
The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.
Historically, the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been ice-bound through the year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm

So what exactly is causing the ice-melt, SarahG, ALIENS??? :lol:

Oh, and it gets even better! Since the Industrial Revolution the majority of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions have been taken up by the oceans. Signs are that this may be coming to an end.

North Atlantic slows on the uptake of CO2
10/22/2007
A paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research by Dr Ute Schuster and Professor Andrew Watson of UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences again raises concerns that the oceans might be slowing their uptake of CO2.

Results of their decade-long study in the North Atlantic show that the uptake in this ocean, which is the most intense sink for atmospheric CO2, slowed down dramatically between the mid-nineties and the early 2000s.

A slowdown in the sink in the Southern Ocean has already been inferred, but the change in the North Atlantic is greater and more sudden, and could be responsible for a substantial proportion of the observed weakening.
http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press/release.asp?id=796

All I can really say is keep reading the comics, SarahG!
:smh :banghead :frustrated :anon :why

[Rogers]

Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut geworden ist.
Translation: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
'Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache. 35 pp. (Leipzig, 1948). Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp.33-34 (as cited in T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Condensed variant: Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus. ~ Truth never triumphs -- its opponents just die out.
- Max Planck
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn, is an analysis of the history of science. Its publication was a landmark event in the sociology of knowledge, and popularized the terms paradigm and paradigm shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

[loki]

http://globalwarminglies.com/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

[trish]

The site "globalwarminglies" is aptly named.

[Rogers]

Good to see you back, trish. I suspect that loki might think you're actually agreeing with him though. :wink:


http://globalwarminglies.com/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
No scientifc papers, loki? Did you actually read the second link you posted? I DON'T THINK SO! You just read the first paragraph didn't you? :lol:

From your second link:
While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

I suggest you maybe read the whole thing again and then get back to me.
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University... LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

Also from your second link:
The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.

Like your link says, loki, the sun appears to be NOT GUILTY!
Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Climate myths: It’s all down to cosmic rays
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651

So if the sun is not the cause of all the ice-melt, loki, what is? ALIENS???

Your first link is hardly worth bothering with except to say... "Friends of Science", LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
That website is so full of strawmen it should be sold for cattle-feed! :lol:

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11655

Can't wait to see what crap you post next, MEXICOWboy. YEEEHAAA! :wink:

[InHouston]

Global warming is just a myth anyway.

Ditto.

Global Warming induced by humans is a politically-motivated crock of B.S. 55 million years ago, an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, complete with near 80 degree temperatures and palm trees.

[InHouston]

Bush, without consultation with any experts, without consideration of its effect on any of NASA's current projects, Bush announces we’re going to Mars and directs NASA to make it top priority. The man is a jerk and his administration is a disaster for science.

That wasn't Bush's sole idea. NASA has always had a long vested interest in returning to Mars for their terraformation research. This research gives humans the option of one day inhabiting Mars.

[NewYorker]

Bush, without consultation with any experts, without consideration of its effect on any of NASA's current projects, Bush announces we’re going to Mars and directs NASA to make it top priority. The man is a jerk and his administration is a disaster for science.

That wasn't Bush's sole idea. NASA has always had a long vested interest in returning to Mars for their terraformation research. This research gives humans the option of one day inhabiting Mars.

Yes, but Bush's timeline to go to Mars was made without consulting NASA in anyway and had no realistic foundation. Furthermore it was also made only as a re-election play.

[Rogers]

Global warming is just a myth anyway.

Ditto.

Global Warming induced by humans is a politically-motivated crock of B.S. 55 million years ago, an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, complete with near 80 degree temperatures and palm trees.
Dumb and dumber!!! That's called a straw man, InHouston, or "informal fallacy".

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
The warmest was probably the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which peaked about 55 million years ago. Global temperatures during this event may have warmed by 5°C to 8°C within a few thousand years, with the Arctic Ocean reaching a subtropical 23°C. Mass extinctions resulted.

The warming, which lasted 200,000 years, was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. It was thought to have come from the thawing of methane clathrates in deep ocean sediments, but the latest theory is that it was caused by a massive volcanic eruption that heated up coal deposits. In other words, the PETM is an example of catastrophic global warming triggered by the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11647

Straw man
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Just because the Earth has been warmer previously does not mean that man-made warming on a lesser scale is nothing to worry about. And what exactly is supposed to be so good about mass extinctions anyway? If anyone is pushing a, "politically-motivated crock of B.S.", it is clearly you InHouston.

[trish]

InHouston writes,
NASA has always had a long vested interest in returning to Mars for their terraformation research.
Yeah, like NASA was planning to terraform Mars within the decade!!
You believe that NASA, with a tiny budget, had plans to change the
climate of an entire planet fifty million miles away,
but that humans can spill millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere
and not affect the Earth’s climate one iota!

[Rogers]

InHouston writes,
NASA has always had a long vested interest in returning to Mars for their terraformation research.
Yeah, like NASA was planning to terraform Mars within the decade!!
You believe that NASA, with a tiny budget, had plans to change the
climate of an entire planet fifty million miles away,
but that humans can spill millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere
and not affect the Earth’s climate one iota!
OUCH!!! The truth hurts.

[q1a2z3]

Global warming, like the Internet, was created by Algore.


The sun causes global warming.
Mars is getting warmer too.
Polar bears lived through the last warm period which was warmer than today.

Today's temperature is starting to approach the Earth average temperature, which means we are still on the cool side of the line.

Which society has more bath houses? George Bush's America or todays middle east?


Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.



Global warming is not caused by humans.

[Oli]

Global Warming induced by humans is a politically-motivated crock of B.S. 55 million years ago, an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, complete with near 80 degree temperatures and palm trees.

And humanity survived that one so the current warming shoould be a piece of cake? Oh, that's right, what happened 55 million years ago didn't effect human society because we hadn't evolved yet!

[Rogers]

If the World was not warming glaciers would not be melting.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Glacier_Mass_Balance_png

The warming is not being caused by the Sun.
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

So if the warming is not being caused by humans, then what?

[trish]

Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.
Global warming is not caused by humans.

sorry rookie, they might work on the fox new crowd, but those jedi mind tricks won't work on me; but i will fall every time for a real argument backed by verifiable evidence from several independent sources and integrated into the weave of modern science.

[q1a2z3]

You really need to do some more reading. The last warm period was a few hundred years ago. The English were growing grapes and making wine because the weather was much warmer. The renaissance occurred in this warm period. Warm weather is a boon for humans. As for evolution, if you believe in evolution say hi to Santa Clause and the Easter bunny and I have a bridge you can buy. "Global Warming" is just a code phrase for "hate Bush." It is usually used by those who want to replace our armed forces with a 55 gallon drum of vasoline.

[qeuqheeg222]

dude try this experiment on C02-sit in yer garage with yer car running..after a couple hours of this see how you feel bout global warming and C02...

[trish]

if you believe in evolution say hi to Santa Clause and the Easter bunny 'nuff said :screwy

[NewYorker]

You really need to do some more reading. The last warm period was a few hundred years ago. The English were growing grapes and making wine because the weather was much warmer. The renaissance occurred in this warm period. Warm weather is a boon for humans. As for evolution, if you believe in evolution say hi to Santa Clause and the Easter bunny and I have a bridge you can buy. "Global Warming" is just a code phrase for "hate Bush." It is usually used by those who want to replace our armed forces with a 55 gallon drum of vasoline.

So if evolution is the fantasy then what is the reality? Oh and you are aware that scientists were talking about global warming long before Bush was president right?

[Rogers]

The last warm period was a few hundred years ago. The English were growing grapes and making wine because the weather was much warmer.
Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
English wine production is once again thriving and the extent of the country's vineyards probably surpasses that in the so-called Medieval Warm Period. So if you think vineyards are an accurate indicator of temperature, this suggests it is warmer now than it was then.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644

Medieval warmth and English wine
Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one 'rather improbably' located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesn't count, it not being in England 'n' all…), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/


I really need to do some more reading.
Is that you, _Candy? :wink:

[SarahG]

Global warming is just a myth anyway.
:what
Of course you're right, SarahG, scientists have been exaggerating for years. :lol:

Rocketing CO2 prompts criticisms of IPCC
24 October 2007
Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are rising faster than any climate models predict, and this has prompted some climate scientists to call for an urgent overhaul of the IPCC.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19626274.800-rocketing-cosub2sub-prompts-criticisms-of-ipcc.html

Arctic melt faster than forecast
4/30/2007
Arctic ice is melting faster than computer models of climate calculate, according to a group of US researchers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6610125.stm

Warming 'opens Northwest Passage'
9/14/2007
The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.
Historically, the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been ice-bound through the year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm

So what exactly is causing the ice-melt, SarahG, ALIENS??? :lol:

Oh, and it gets even better! Since the Industrial Revolution the majority of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions have been taken up by the oceans. Signs are that this may be coming to an end.

North Atlantic slows on the uptake of CO2
10/22/2007
A paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research by Dr Ute Schuster and Professor Andrew Watson of UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences again raises concerns that the oceans might be slowing their uptake of CO2.

Results of their decade-long study in the North Atlantic show that the uptake in this ocean, which is the most intense sink for atmospheric CO2, slowed down dramatically between the mid-nineties and the early 2000s.

A slowdown in the sink in the Southern Ocean has already been inferred, but the change in the North Atlantic is greater and more sudden, and could be responsible for a substantial proportion of the observed weakening.
http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press/release.asp?id=796

All I can really say is keep reading the comics, SarahG!
:smh :banghead :frustrated :anon :why

You need to lighten up a bit, I was joking. :roll:

The comic was meant as a jab at all the fake science floating around to say global warming is a myth.

Do I really have to put <sarcasm> tags around posts like that?

[Rogers]

Global warming is just a myth anyway.
:what
Of course you're right, SarahG, scientists have been exaggerating for years. :lol:

Rocketing CO2 prompts criticisms of IPCC
24 October 2007
Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are rising faster than any climate models predict, and this has prompted some climate scientists to call for an urgent overhaul of the IPCC.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19626274.800-rocketing-cosub2sub-prompts-criticisms-of-ipcc.html

Arctic melt faster than forecast
4/30/2007
Arctic ice is melting faster than computer models of climate calculate, according to a group of US researchers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6610125.stm

Warming 'opens Northwest Passage'
9/14/2007
The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.
Historically, the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been ice-bound through the year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm

So what exactly is causing the ice-melt, SarahG, ALIENS??? :lol:

Oh, and it gets even better! Since the Industrial Revolution the majority of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions have been taken up by the oceans. Signs are that this may be coming to an end.

North Atlantic slows on the uptake of CO2
10/22/2007
A paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research by Dr Ute Schuster and Professor Andrew Watson of UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences again raises concerns that the oceans might be slowing their uptake of CO2.

Results of their decade-long study in the North Atlantic show that the uptake in this ocean, which is the most intense sink for atmospheric CO2, slowed down dramatically between the mid-nineties and the early 2000s.

A slowdown in the sink in the Southern Ocean has already been inferred, but the change in the North Atlantic is greater and more sudden, and could be responsible for a substantial proportion of the observed weakening.
http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press/release.asp?id=796

All I can really say is keep reading the comics, SarahG!
:smh :banghead :frustrated :anon :why

You need to lighten up a bit, I was joking. :roll:

The comic was meant as a jab at all the fake science floating around to say global warming is a myth.

Do I really have to put <sarcasm> tags around posts like that?
Good for you, SarahG. :wink:

[thx1138]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html?ei=5065&en=89addca1068f997d&ex=1195966800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change why does Ban Ki Moon hate America and big oil? Is it because of our freedoms?

[q1a2z3]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Algor invented global warming and the Internet!

Global warming falls under the "billion flies theory", a billion flies eat s**t therefore it must taste good. Global warming, by human activity, is junk science! It's a leftist religion. The review of the mathematical models used in global warming are constantly being revised and errors are constantly being found. Global warming nonsense is being used to drive America into making bogus treaties with commie countries like china and russia where we give up the good life while they keep "polluting."

The good news is that some scientists have developed zeolite catalysts and other processes to turn offal into oil. Just drop in organic material at one end and out pops gasoline/biodiesel at the other. America could switch to powering the country with liberals/commies - just drop them in. This could also solve the gang problem, the illegal alien problem, and the terrorist problem.

It would be nice if the reds of the vietnam generation would die out soon so the truth, there is no human created global warming, would outlive them sooner.

[Oli]

More Right Wing obfuscation...If I keep repeating it long enough, the weak-minded like myself will believe it's true. More Right Wing obfuscation...If I keep repeating it long enough, the weak-minded like myself will believe it's true. More Right Wing obfuscation...If I keep repeating it long enough, the weak-minded like myself will believe it's true. More Right Wing obfuscation...If I keep repeating it long enough, the weak-minded like myself will believe it's true.

Good to know your understanding of science is equal to your vast economic knowledge.


Don't forget to quote Sean and Rush at least once a day!!!!

[NewYorker]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Algor invented global warming and the Internet!

Global warming falls under the "billion flies theory", a billion flies eat s**t therefore it must taste good. Global warming, by human activity, is junk science! It's a leftist religion. The review of the mathematical models used in global warming are constantly being revised and errors are constantly being found. Global warming nonsense is being used to drive America into making bogus treaties with commie countries like china and russia where we give up the good life while they keep "polluting."

The good news is that some scientists have developed zeolite catalysts and other processes to turn offal into oil. Just drop in organic material at one end and out pops gasoline/biodiesel at the other. America could switch to powering the country with liberals/commies - just drop them in. This could also solve the gang problem, the illegal alien problem, and the terrorist problem.

It would be nice if the reds of the vietnam generation would die out soon so the truth, there is no human created global warming, would outlive them sooner.

You do know that Russia hasn't been a communist country since 1991, right?

[q1a2z3]

Hey Oli and New Yorker,

If you two guys were in the assassination business you couldn't handle it in a locked closet with a grenade. The adorable little KGB elf Putin is running the country back to communism everyday. Just ask Gary Kasparov. Just keep repeating your wet dream Oli and one day you will wake up cold, wet and sticky.

[trish]

the muslum caliphate is coming, the muslum caliphate is coming, omg, oh my fuckin' god, what are we going to do!!!!!! they're on their way. really. i mean really. they're coming!!!! somebody, do something. listen in on my phone calls, extend the patriot act, torture someone,...just DO something....they're at the door!!!!!!!!!

[Oli]

What's wrong Quite A Zero, lack of original thought brings you to third rate insults? Did I hit a little to close too home? (Did you quote Rush today?)

Consensus on global warming has occurred; those who deny its existence are practicing the 'junk science' in a vain attempt to discredit any part of it they can, unsuccessfully I may add. Why don't you post a link to a credible source that disproves it?

Now Putin is the boogeyman? What happened to the Muslim Caliphate? I'm not terribly afraid of the Russians. His hand picked successor has no connection to the KGB or security services, but he did run Gazprom, and worked with Putin in St. Petersburg. Gary Kasparov is no George Washington, hell he isn't even a James Buchanan. In a country with no democratic history, you want stable, unadulterated elections? We can't even have those here! (See Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 or Chicago any second Tuesday in November)

Open your eyes and, after you examine your colon, look around and see the world for what it is, a fucked up place where 7.7 billion people live their lives outside the control of the US government. But many decisions made by our government have a direct impact on their lives, the most egregious being the continued denial that global warming is a predominantly man made disaster and our unwillingness to address it in any substantial way.



LOL Trish :D

[Oli]

:shock:

http://www.bodaciousbabette.com/hbend/a66112/08.jpg

[thx1138]

Putin is no more autocratic than GWB. See bush's hundreds of signing statement that have the effect of overturning the will of the people as represented by the laws passed by congress.

[hippifried]

Not really. Signing statements are a bluff. They have no force of law. Once a bill is signed, it's the law, no matter what statements the President makes.

[thx1138]

Sure a law is a law. But it's sham if the executive branch refuses to enforce it in the manner (or a all)stipulated by congress.

[hippifried]

Refusal to faithfully execute the laws is a breach of the oath. Not sure if such a breach is an impeachable offence.

[trish]

seems to me a signing statement is tantamount to declaring one's intent not to faithfully execute the laws and consequently revoking the oath. too bad that's not an impeachable offense.

[hippifried]

Yeah, maybe... Like I said, it's a bluff. It's not new. Presidents have been doing this for a long time. It's just that usually it's been a commentary on the problem that the legislation is supposed to fix, or an explanation of his understanding of the bill so it might have an effect in court later if "intent" comes into play.

What President Bush has been attempting is to put actual caveats on the bills. That doesn't work. The President doesn't have the power to make or negate law. So far it's all a moot point because he hasn't tried to do anything with the statements. It's just a bluff.

[Oli]

It's not really moot Hippi...the following is from the Boston Globe April, 2006

Examples of the president's signing statements

April 30, 2006

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:


March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

To clarify the first paragraph, this from the American Presidency Project:

Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them?

A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”

Also

In an essay published in the Boston Globe on August 9, 2006, liberal scholar Lawrence Tribe wrote that signing statements are “informative and constitutionally unobjectionable.” [b]Tribe writes that what is objectionable is “the president’s failure to face the political music by issuing a veto and subjecting that veto to the possibility of an override in Congress.” An eventual challenge to a president should come not to the statement, but to the fact that a president failed to enforce a law or that his actions resulted in harm to others. In the latter case, Tribe has in mind Presidential directives about how to treat “unlawful combatants.”

[beandip]

Has anyone on this thread actually broadened their scope of research beyond cow farts and auto emissions?

Like... anyone look into all the NASA reports of the radical climate changes that all of the planets in our solar system are currently experiencing?

Do a web search. You'll begin to see that the belief that man has made these climate changes recently is an exercise in self aggrandizement.

News flash here folks: Show me a planet with thermal stasis and I'll show you a dead planet. Our planet has been going through heating and cooling cycles since this big blue ball formed. Ya know what? This big blue ball will continue to live and flourish with or without humans living on it, no need to fret.

Big government(s) have to put the blame on humans so that the fuckmeisters in control can continue to exert their micromanagement of our lives (think heavy taxation here). Do you really think Shrub can get up there and say "Well folks...looks like we're headed for a serious shit storm...there's nothing much that Government can do about it...so just grab yer ankles and kiss yer ass good by"

There is no doubt that "global warming" exists...however a more descriptive term would be "CLIMATE CHANGE" that point is not even arguable. The important thing to "worry" about if in fact one feels a compulsion to worry....is how humans will adapt.

Any hoo....you folks keep on keepin on...

ps, Trish...you're friggin hot!

[Rogers]

:boring One bastard goes in, another one comes out. - Tuco, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly".


Has anyone on this thread actually broadened their scope of research beyond cow farts and auto emissions?

Like... anyone look into all the NASA reports of the radical climate changes that all of the planets in our solar system are currently experiencing?

Do a web search. You'll begin to see that the belief that man has made these climate changes recently is an exercise in self aggrandizement.

News flash here folks: Show me a planet with thermal stasis and I'll show you a dead planet. Our planet has been going through heating and cooling cycles since this big blue ball formed. Ya know what? This big blue ball will continue to live and flourish with or without humans living on it, no need to fret.

Big government(s) have to put the blame on humans so that the fuckmeisters in control can continue to exert their micromanagement of our lives (think heavy taxation here). Do you really think Shrub can get up there and say "Well folks...looks like we're headed for a serious shit storm...there's nothing much that Government can do about it...so just grab yer ankles and kiss yer ass good by"

There is no doubt that "global warming" exists...however a more descriptive term would be "CLIMATE CHANGE" that point is not even arguable. The important thing to "worry" about if in fact one feels a compulsion to worry....is how humans will adapt.

Any hoo....you folks keep on keepin on...

ps, Trish...you're friggin hot!
Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

Humans 'affect global rainfall'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6912527.stm

The Great Tigray Ethiopian FAMINE in Ethiopia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGddIDHbCQ

[trish]

thank you Rogers.

beandip, if you did a search of the discussions we already had here on climate change you'd would've seen we got way past cow farts and auto emissions. we discussed and debunked the solar flux hypothesis and it's grandchild, the theory of synchronous planetary warming, on several occasions. thanks for not being rude though.