Predictions

[westwall]

skooks is more interested in the political/practical side. and the tide is turning now that CAGW predictions are proving to be false time after time.

The kookster's arguments are all politically based and ignore the actual science and the evidence.

The climate model predictions are proving to be correct time after time, no matter what your denier cult myths tell you.

In 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed

Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed

Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected

Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.

Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening

Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

people dont like being fooled.

Most intelligent people don't like being fooled but you denier cultists seem to love it. You just eat up the lies and misinformation that the fossil fuel industry is feeding you because it better suits your political narrative.

The models are not as accurate as you claim and based on your normal level of scientific illiteracy I guess the fact that Hansens predictions are off by only 300% qualifies as good to you. Just lets the rest of the world know how incompetent you are that 300% off is considered good.

 

[Two Thumbs]

They have been calling for record bad weather for 10 years in a row now.

And now that it looks like they may be right, yall gunna jump up and down for joy?

sheep

 

[skookerasbil]

skooks is more interested in the political/practical side. and the tide is turning now that CAGW predictions are proving to be false time after time. people dont like being fooled.

and his posts are entertaining too. I wonder if the carpet matches the drapes?

Ian............is it me or is it not fascinating that the k00ks dont fathom the science/politics linkage??? Tell me its not a thought process fcukk-up thing!!!!!!!!! HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.


So ummm.............Im going to try to spell it out for the OCD assholes who think the "warming" debate is about who is right and who is wrong about the next few decades, and I'll do it in bullet style so the thatched cottage crowd might better understand...........

>> The Religion and The Skeptics are both pwned by special interests.

>> The Religion by those interested in moving forward highly profitable alternative energy technology.

>> The Skeptics by conventional energy technology and fossil fuels.

>>The Religion dominated the courts of public opinion until late 2009..........then Climategate hit.

>>The Skeptics have dominated the courts of public opinion since late 2009.

>>Unemployment has skyrocketed in the past 2 years. Green jobs gained vs. Conventional energy jobs lost = a huge net loss in jobs nationwide = an economic and political FACT

>>Legislative efforts in Congress on Cap and trade legislation DIED in early 2010

>>Most of the US experienced mega snowstorms in the winter of 2010....global warming propaganda was universally laughed at by MOST Americans

>>The HOUSE is now controlled by the GOP for at least the next 6, but probably closer to ten years due to state redistricting by GOP governors = impossible for DEMS to take back the HOUSE.

>>ZERO climate legislation will get through the US HOUSE for at least the next 6 years.




THUS



>>Real science or fake science.................it just doesnt matter in 2011 unless you have a hobby of posting up graphs, maps, images and #'s.

>>The science debate on the data is like an exercise in group navel contemplation

 

[RollingThunder]

Completely, and utterly ridiculous. Earthquakes happen at depths far below what any surface warming could effect. Temperatures of the crust range from 200C to 400C and the temperature of the mantle range from 500C to 900C. It takes a million years for molten rock to cool one degree at depth. The claims are completely stupid and anyone with even a passing knowledge of geology realises this.

Isostatic rebound has been going on since the continental ice sheets melted and the area of the Great Lakes and Greenland has been rising at the rate of one inch per year for the last 10,000 years.

These claims are as ignorant, or more likely disingenuous, as those claiming ocean acidification.

A lot of stuff in the real world must seem "completely, and utterly ridiculous" to someone as misinformed, ignorant, unimaginative and confused as you are, walleyed. The only claims that are "ignorant, or more likely disingenuous" are yours. Greenland has not been rising an inch per year for ten thousand years (830 feet???). The ice sheets on Greenland have stayed pretty constant for that time and the land has only recently started to rebound as the ice sheet melts and the glacier flow into the sea increases.

Greenland Rising Rapidly as Ice Melts
Date: 18 May 2010


Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes
Aug 30, 2007

Fire and Ice: Melting Glaciers Trigger Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanos
Geologists Say Global Warming Expected to Cause Many New Seismic Events


Oh, and BTW...

Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem
NOAA

In order of stupidness.

...you come first, every time!

Isostatic rebound has been occuring for the last 11,000 years. It's nothing new and it is certainly not due to man caused global warming, unless you are making the claim that SUV's were polluting the Earth way back then.

Yeah, isostatic rebound has been occurring since the ice sheets melted off of North America and Europe but your understanding of the matter is comic book simplistic. The rebound was large during and immediately after the ice sheet melt but it then slowed to a very low level of about one centimeter a year or less, not the ridiculous figure you claimed: ""Greenland has been rising at the rate of one inch per year for the last 10,000 years". There is absolutely no geological evidence showing a rise of over 830 feet. That's just your denier cult craziness and ignorance speaking.

Post-glacial rebound

During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.

Studies have shown that the uplift has taken place in two distinct stages. The initial uplift following deglaciation was rapid (called "elastic"), and took place as the ice was being unloaded. After this "elastic" phase, uplift proceeded by "slow viscous flow" so the rate decreased exponentially after that. Today, typical uplift rates are of the order of 1 cm/year or less. In northern Europe, this is clearly shown by the GPS data obtained by the BIFROST GPS network.[1]



Now, in the last few decades, parts of Greenland are measured to be rising at a rate of one inch per year and still accelerating.

Greenland Rising Rapidly as Ice Melts
Date: 18 May 2010
(excerpts)

Scientists have documented on Greenland and elsewhere that when longstanding ice melts away, the land rebounds. Even the European Alps are rising as glaciers melt. Now, scientists at the University of Miami say Greenland's ice is melting so quickly that the land underneath is rising at an accelerated pace. Some coastal areas are going up by nearly 1 inch per year, the scientists announced today. If current trends continue, that could accelerate to as much as 2 inches per year by 2025, said Tim Dixon, professor of geophysics at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS) and principal investigator of the study. "It's been known for several years that climate change is contributing to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet," Dixon said in a statement. "What's surprising, and a bit worrisome, is that the ice is melting so fast that we can actually see the land uplift in response." Dixon added: "Even more surprising, the rise seems to be accelerating, implying that melting is accelerating."

Any jackass (and that is what I classify anyone who makes this particular assertion) can claim global warming is causing earthquakes.

Any jackass can deny scientific evidence when it is politically and economically 'necessary' for them to do so in order to preserve their cherished illusions.

He's going to have a bloody hard time providing a shred of empirical data to substantiate that claim. Oh yeah see that really important word there? You see it? "Might" is the word.....that relegates that whole pice down to the level of a psychic. FAIL!

You only spew this bs because you're soooo ignorant about the science and the evidence. Scientists always use qualifiers like "might" but that doesn't mean they are just guessing, as you anti-science twits assume.

In the first place, I'm not going to debate your straw-man arguments. No scientists are saying that any particular earthquake can be definitely linked to global warming. They are saying that the vastly increased and measured crustal rebound in various places caused by the melting glaciers and ice sheets will very probably produce an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity as this crustal rebound stresses the tectonic plate boundaries and the ice melt relieves the weight that has been holding down volcanic magma.

And there is "empirical data to substantiate that claim". They can tell from the geologic record that there was an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity when the major ice sheets covering Europe and North America melted off at the end of the last glacial. There is also the empirical evidence that I posted earlier from the US Geological Survey showing that earthquakes activity is, in fact, increasing.

According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey
there were 1,085 major earthquakes in the 1980s. {in ten years}
This increased in the 1990s by about 50 per cent to 1,492 {in ten years}
and to 1,611 from 2000 to 2009. {in ten years}
Last year, and up to and including the Japanese quake, there were 247 major earthquakes. {in just a little over one year}

There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan. In the 1980s, there were four mega-quakes, {in ten years}
six in the 1990s and {in ten years}
13 in the last decade. {in ten years}
So far this decade we have had two. {in just a little less than one and a half years}


Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes
(excerpts)

Areas of rebounding crust could change the stresses acting on earthquake faults and volcanoes in the crust. "In places like Iceland, for example, where you have the Eyjafjallajökull ice sheet, which wouldn't survive [global warming], and you've got lots of volcanoes under that, the unloading effect can trigger eruptions," McGuire said. {Dr. Bill McGuire, PhD in Geology, Professor of Geohazards at University College London and one of Britain's leading volcanologists}

With the changing dynamics in the crust, faults could also be destabilized, which could bring a whole host of other problems. "It's not just the volcanoes. Obviously if you load and unload active faults, then you're liable to trigger earthquakes," McGuire told LiveScience, noting that there is ample evidence for this association in past climate change events. "At the end of the last Ice Age, there was a great increase in seismicity along the margins of the ice sheets in Scandinavia and places like this, and that triggered these huge submarine landsides which generated tsunamis," McGuire said. "So you've got the whole range of geological hazards there that can result from if we see this big catastrophic melting."


Fire and Ice: Melting Glaciers Trigger Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanos
Geologists Say Global Warming Expected to Cause Many New Seismic Events
(excerpts)

Climatologists have been raising alarms about global warming for years, and now geologists are getting into the act, warning that melting glaciers will lead to an increasing number of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions in unexpected places.

Geologists say releasing that pressure on the Earth’s surface will cause all sorts of geologic reactions, such as earthquakes, tsunamis (caused by undersea earthquakes) and volcanic eruptions. "What happens is the weight of this thick ice puts a lot of stress on the earth," said Patrick Wu, a geologist at the University of Alberta in Canada, in an interview with the Canadian Press. "The weight sort of suppresses the earthquakes, but when you melt the ice the earthquakes get triggered." Wu said many of the earthquakes that occur in Canada today are related to the ongoing rebound effect that started with the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But with global warming accelerating climate changes and causing glaciers to melt more quickly, Wu said the inevitable rebound is expected to happen much faster this time around. Wu said melting ice in Antarctica is already triggering earthquakes and underwater landslides. These events aren’t getting much attention, but they are early warnings of the more serious events that scientists believe are coming. According to Wu, global warming will create “lots of earthquakes.” Professor Wu is not alone in his assessment.

Ocean acidification is the latest hot button non issue. The global pH average is 8.1 If we burned every carbon bearing substance on the planet you would see a drop in pH to 8.0. Still not acidic. Even if you could get levels of acidity to ridiculous levels there is still no problem.

Total bullshit, walleyed. Most scientists in this field of study agree that ocean acidification is a very serious problem with the potential to devastate the ocean food chains and cause widespread species extinction.

Even wiki reports that....

LOLOLOLOL.....ok, let's see what "wiki reports" about the actual topic.

Ocean acidification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[1] Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[2] representing an increase of approaching 30% in "acidity" (H+ ion concentration) in the world's oceans.[3][4][5]

Dissolving CO2 in seawater increases the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and Wickett (2003)[1] placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes during the last 300 million years.

Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly more than 0.1 units on the logarithmic scale of pH, representing an approximately 29% increase in H+, and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 pH units (an additional doubling to tripling of today's post-industrial acid concentrations) by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[1][10][15] These changes are predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, the degree of change to ocean chemistry, for example ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways society takes.[16] Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming less basic.

Although the largest changes are expected in the future,[10] a report from NOAA scientists found large quantities of water undersaturated in aragonite are already upwelling close to the Pacific continental shelf area of North America.[17] Continental shelves play an important role in marine ecosystems since most marine organisms live or are spawned there, and though the study only dealt with the area from Vancouver to northern California, the authors suggest that other shelf areas may be experiencing similar effects.[17]

Similarly, one of the first detailed datasets examining temporal variations in pH at a temperate coastal location found that acidification was occurring at a rate much higher than that previously predicted, with consequences for near-shore benthic ecosystems.[18][19]

A December 2009 National Geographic report quoted Thomas Lovejoy, former chief biodiversity advisor to the World Bank on recent research suggesting "the acidity of the oceans will more than double in the next 40 years. This rate is 100 times faster than any changes in ocean acidity in the last 20 million years, making it unlikely that marine life can somehow adapt to the changes."[20]

According to research, from the University of Bristol, published in the journal Nature Geoscience in February 2010, compared current rates of ocean acidification with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5-6 degrees Celsius, during which time no catastrophe is seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. They concluded that the current acidification is on path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years.[21] The study also found that the current rate of acidification is "ten times the rate that preceded the mass extinction 55 million years ago," and Ridgwell commented that the present rate "is an almost unprecedented geological event."[22] A National Research Council study released in April 2010 likewise concluded that "the level of acid in the oceans is increasing at an unprecedented rate."[23]

A review by climate scientists at the RealClimate blog, of a 2005 report by the Royal Society of the UK similarly highlighted the centrality of the rates of change in the present anthropogenic acidification process, writing:[24]

"The natural pH of the ocean is determined by a need to balance the deposition and burial of CaCO3 on the sea floor against the influx of Ca2+and CO2−3 into the ocean from dissolving rocks on land, called weathering. These processes stabilize the pH of the ocean, by a mechanism called CaCO3 compensation...The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."​

A July 2010 article in Scientific American quoted marine geologist William Howard of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center in Hobart, Tasmania stating that "the current rate of ocean acidification is about a hundred times faster than the most rapid events" in the geologic past.[25] Research at the University of South Florida has shown that in the 15-year period 1995-2010 alone, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska.[26]

 

[Douger]

Just had a 6.0 here about 4:45.
Interesting. It didn't really "shake" I just felt the house sliding around on it's pads ( I built for a 9.0).
My caretakers wife said the dishes in her sink rattled.

 

[RollingThunder]

skooks is more interested in the political/practical side. and the tide is turning now that CAGW predictions are proving to be false time after time.

The kookster's arguments are all politically based and ignore the actual science and the evidence.

The climate model predictions are proving to be correct time after time, no matter what your denier cult myths tell you.

In 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed

Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed

Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected

Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.

Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening

Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

people dont like being fooled.

Most intelligent people don't like being fooled but you denier cultists seem to love it. You just eat up the lies and misinformation that the fossil fuel industry is feeding you because it better suits your political narrative.

The models are not as accurate as you claim

That's another one of your pathetic denier cult myths and, as usual, you can't back up your assertions with any evidence.

and based on your normal level of scientific illiteracy

That's actually pretty funny coming from an ignorant, clueless, anti-science twit like yourself. I post arguments with citations and links to scientific articles and evidence and you post your own hot air and not much else.

I guess the fact that Hansens predictions are off by only 300% qualifies as good to you. Just lets the rest of the world know how incompetent you are that 300% off is considered good.

LOLOL....just because you believe you own denier cult myths doesn't mean anyone else falls for that ol' BS. Dr. Hansens's predictions were fairly accurate as has been demonstrated by subsequent events.

A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections

 

[Oddball]

I predict that Trolling Blunder will troll and blunder.

 

[RollingThunder]

I predict that Trolling Blunder will troll and blunder.

I already predicted that you would never post anything meaningful or significant and you've fulfilled that prediction constantly and consistently.

 

[westwall]

The kookster's arguments are all politically based and ignore the actual science and the evidence.

The climate model predictions are proving to be correct time after time, no matter what your denier cult myths tell you.

In 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed

Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed

Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected

Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.

Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening

Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.





Most intelligent people don't like being fooled but you denier cultists seem to love it. You just eat up the lies and misinformation that the fossil fuel industry is feeding you because it better suits your political narrative.

The models are not as accurate as you claim

That's another one of your pathetic denier cult myths and, as usual, you can't back up your assertions with any evidence.

and based on your normal level of scientific illiteracy

That's actually pretty funny coming from an ignorant, clueless, anti-science twit like yourself. I post arguments with citations and links to scientific articles and evidence and you post your own hot air and not much else.

I guess the fact that Hansens predictions are off by only 300% qualifies as good to you. Just lets the rest of the world know how incompetent you are that 300% off is considered good.

LOLOL....just because you believe you own denier cult myths doesn't mean anyone else falls for that ol' BS. Dr. Hansens's predictions were fairly accurate as has been demonstrated by subsequent events.

A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections

You do? And then you post to a heavily biased science blog run by alarmists heavily invested in the fraud You're a riot! Clueless and stupid but a riot non the less!

 

[Old Rocks]

The fraud is on your side, Walleyes.

Once again, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. It is the well paid liars for the energy companies like yourself that are heavily invested in fraud.

 

[skookerasbil]

The fraud is on your side, Walleyes.

Once again, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. It is the well paid liars for the energy companies like yourself that are heavily invested in fraud.

LMBO.........."clear and present danger"................


So much so that Old Rocks here, went out and built himself a home-made emergency raft..........LMBO...........in case the flood come.

Here is his schematic ( of course, I added the flag)

Now.........somebody tell me these people arent fcukking whacked???!!!!!!!!!!!



OH............and by the way. What do every National Academy of Science and University Science Dept have in common??? Their "science" is funded by...............???????????????????????????????????????????????

You guessed it...........................THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


National Academies = "conflicts of interest" up the ying-yang.................check it out.................National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch





The k00ks never want people to know about that...............

Dollar to 1,000 stale donuts, Old Rocks will come back with a one or two sentence rant about "'Ole K00ky...................". Why? Because the guy has a mental meltdown when I expose his shit.................

 

[Old Rocks]

I see, you sodden dumb ass. So, every government pays it's National Academy of Science to agree with every other government's National Academies of Science on this subject? Got your tinfoil hat on straight, ol' Kook?

Every major university in the world, whether privately or government funded, by what ever government, states that AGW is a fact. And no matter what the political system, the National Academy of Science in all the nations state the same, even that of Saudi Arabia.

Now, do one of your stupid cartoons. Flap yap and make no sense at all, as is your norm. But the fact remains, AGW is real, and the vast majority of scientists will tell you that unequivocally.

 

[Old Rocks]

From your site, Kooky. Seems that the conflict of interest at the NAS is the influence of the companies, like Exxon.

National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch

NAS conflicts of interests
The NAS was created by for the purpose of providing independent, science-based advice to federal policy makers. However, according to a one year review of of 21 NAS committees, conducted by the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), almost one in five scientists appointed to an NAS panel, had direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with direct stakes in the outcome of the study. Almost half of the panels examined had scientists with readily identifiable biases, not offset by scientists with alternative points of view. CSPI didn't dispute the quality of reports produced by the National Academies, however, it recommended the NAS strengthen its policies for avoiding and disclosing conflicts of interest and for maintaining balance in the interest of maintaining public credibility.

Of the 320 committee members CSPI evaluated, 18% had direct conflicts of interest, or a direct and recent connection to a company or industry with a financial stake in the study outcome. For example, an Institute of Medicine panel evaluating the risk of mercury in fish, included a scientist who had research funded by the United States Tuna Foundation and the National Food Processors Association, pro-industry research and lobbying groups. In another example, 10 out of 11 scientists on a “State Practices in Setting Mobile Source Emissions Standards” panel had ties to carbon-emitting industries. On another NAS panel with the task of reviewing the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program, 10 out of 11 members had ties to petroleum, energy, or chemical industries. Few of those conflicts of interest were disclosed to the public. [3]

On July 24, 2006, the debate over how to handle conflicts of interest among members of U.S. government advisory panels heated up as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to more closely examine the issue on science panels. For example, FDA planned to revise the guidelines used to determine when a member with a conflict of interest deserves a waiver; issued when a conflict is deemed to be insignificant, or a scientist's expertise too great to lose. In addition, the FDA planned to examined ways to improve it's public analysis of issuing waivers to some scientists. According to FDA deputy commissioner for medical scientific affairs Scott Gottlieb:

"There's more we can do to simplify how we communicate the criteria we use to give waivers."
The FDA's plan to review its waiver policy followed the introduction of a bill in Congress the previous year, which proposed the eliminating waivers. CSPI also issued a report on July 24, 2006 which revealed that nearly one in five scientists appointed to a sample of expert panels convened by the NAS, had "direct financial ties" to companies with a stake in the outcome of the debate. Nearly half of panels contained too many scientists with industry ties and not enough with alternative viewpoints, such as ties to environmental or public interest groups. According to director of Integrity in Science at CSPI, Merrill Goozner:

"I think that there is a fairly consistent pattern, in some (NAS) committees - not all - that there is an imbalance."

According to Mr. Goozner, the NAS consistently puts out "pretty good reports" , but having an excess of pro-industry experts most likely has subtle effects on more subtle questions, such as how much dioxin is toxic:

"I believe there are scientists out there without conflicts of interest who can serve on these committees and do a comparable job." [4]

 

[Old Rocks]

From your site, Kooky. Seems that the conflict of interest at the NAS is the influence of the companies, like Exxon.

National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch

NAS conflicts of interests
The NAS was created by for the purpose of providing independent, science-based advice to federal policy makers. However, according to a one year review of of 21 NAS committees, conducted by the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), almost one in five scientists appointed to an NAS panel, had direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with direct stakes in the outcome of the study. Almost half of the panels examined had scientists with readily identifiable biases, not offset by scientists with alternative points of view. CSPI didn't dispute the quality of reports produced by the National Academies, however, it recommended the NAS strengthen its policies for avoiding and disclosing conflicts of interest and for maintaining balance in the interest of maintaining public credibility.

Of the 320 committee members CSPI evaluated, 18% had direct conflicts of interest, or a direct and recent connection to a company or industry with a financial stake in the study outcome. For example, an Institute of Medicine panel evaluating the risk of mercury in fish, included a scientist who had research funded by the United States Tuna Foundation and the National Food Processors Association, pro-industry research and lobbying groups. In another example, 10 out of 11 scientists on a “State Practices in Setting Mobile Source Emissions Standards” panel had ties to carbon-emitting industries. On another NAS panel with the task of reviewing the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program, 10 out of 11 members had ties to petroleum, energy, or chemical industries. Few of those conflicts of interest were disclosed to the public. [3]

On July 24, 2006, the debate over how to handle conflicts of interest among members of U.S. government advisory panels heated up as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to more closely examine the issue on science panels. For example, FDA planned to revise the guidelines used to determine when a member with a conflict of interest deserves a waiver; issued when a conflict is deemed to be insignificant, or a scientist's expertise too great to lose. In addition, the FDA planned to examined ways to improve it's public analysis of issuing waivers to some scientists. According to FDA deputy commissioner for medical scientific affairs Scott Gottlieb:

"There's more we can do to simplify how we communicate the criteria we use to give waivers."
The FDA's plan to review its waiver policy followed the introduction of a bill in Congress the previous year, which proposed the eliminating waivers. CSPI also issued a report on July 24, 2006 which revealed that nearly one in five scientists appointed to a sample of expert panels convened by the NAS, had "direct financial ties" to companies with a stake in the outcome of the debate. Nearly half of panels contained too many scientists with industry ties and not enough with alternative viewpoints, such as ties to environmental or public interest groups. According to director of Integrity in Science at CSPI, Merrill Goozner:

"I think that there is a fairly consistent pattern, in some (NAS) committees - not all - that there is an imbalance."

According to Mr. Goozner, the NAS consistently puts out "pretty good reports" , but having an excess of pro-industry experts most likely has subtle effects on more subtle questions, such as how much dioxin is toxic:

"I believe there are scientists out there without conflicts of interest who can serve on these committees and do a comparable job." [4]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[percysunshine]

Only the government would tax breathing.

 

[skookerasbil]

From your site, Kooky. Seems that the conflict of interest at the NAS is the influence of the companies, like Exxon.

National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch

NAS conflicts of interests
The NAS was created by for the purpose of providing independent, science-based advice to federal policy makers. However, according to a one year review of of 21 NAS committees, conducted by the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), almost one in five scientists appointed to an NAS panel, had direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with direct stakes in the outcome of the study. Almost half of the panels examined had scientists with readily identifiable biases, not offset by scientists with alternative points of view. CSPI didn't dispute the quality of reports produced by the National Academies, however, it recommended the NAS strengthen its policies for avoiding and disclosing conflicts of interest and for maintaining balance in the interest of maintaining public credibility.

Of the 320 committee members CSPI evaluated, 18% had direct conflicts of interest, or a direct and recent connection to a company or industry with a financial stake in the study outcome. For example, an Institute of Medicine panel evaluating the risk of mercury in fish, included a scientist who had research funded by the United States Tuna Foundation and the National Food Processors Association, pro-industry research and lobbying groups. In another example, 10 out of 11 scientists on a “State Practices in Setting Mobile Source Emissions Standards” panel had ties to carbon-emitting industries. On another NAS panel with the task of reviewing the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program, 10 out of 11 members had ties to petroleum, energy, or chemical industries. Few of those conflicts of interest were disclosed to the public. [3]

On July 24, 2006, the debate over how to handle conflicts of interest among members of U.S. government advisory panels heated up as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to more closely examine the issue on science panels. For example, FDA planned to revise the guidelines used to determine when a member with a conflict of interest deserves a waiver; issued when a conflict is deemed to be insignificant, or a scientist's expertise too great to lose. In addition, the FDA planned to examined ways to improve it's public analysis of issuing waivers to some scientists. According to FDA deputy commissioner for medical scientific affairs Scott Gottlieb:

"There's more we can do to simplify how we communicate the criteria we use to give waivers."
The FDA's plan to review its waiver policy followed the introduction of a bill in Congress the previous year, which proposed the eliminating waivers. CSPI also issued a report on July 24, 2006 which revealed that nearly one in five scientists appointed to a sample of expert panels convened by the NAS, had "direct financial ties" to companies with a stake in the outcome of the debate. Nearly half of panels contained too many scientists with industry ties and not enough with alternative viewpoints, such as ties to environmental or public interest groups. According to director of Integrity in Science at CSPI, Merrill Goozner:

"I think that there is a fairly consistent pattern, in some (NAS) committees - not all - that there is an imbalance."

According to Mr. Goozner, the NAS consistently puts out "pretty good reports" , but having an excess of pro-industry experts most likely has subtle effects on more subtle questions, such as how much dioxin is toxic:

"I believe there are scientists out there without conflicts of interest who can serve on these committees and do a comparable job." [4]

In fact..........the term "man made global warming" wouldnt even exist if not for that fact............

 

[skookerasbil]

Government: The View from Washington, DC

The money that paid for research on climate change came mostly from governments. Governments were also central to any practical actions that might address global warming. Following the Second World War, the United States Federal government funded many kinds of research, much of it connected to Cold War concerns, and some of this happened to relate to climate change. During the 1960s, the government created major agencies for space, atmospheric, and ocean science, and in the 1970s, as public concern for the environment mounted, the agencies increasingly supported research targeted directly at climate change

Government: The View from Washington, DC

 

[skookerasbil]

But much of science runs on government money. Some people find the stink of bias only in private money, and see government as free of it, but they are mistaken. Government likes certain beliefs. To get its money, you have to get the approval of the scientists it selects, and you are less likely to get it if they think your idea wrong.





The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? | Reprint



Herein lies the mega problem associated with the level of naive attached to the alarmists. People like Rolling Thunder, Konrad, Editec, Chris and most notably, Old Rocks.........they all truly believe that there is no stink in the use of government money. I find it fcukking fascinating that people can be THAT naive. The blindly assume that the government is spending billions of $$$$ because its intentions are noble. Actually........it is this that puts them in the category of k00k more than anything else. There is far, far, far more corruption in government than private industry. Why? Well, unless you are a complete jackass, you know that government has ZERO competition. No elaboration necessary ( unless you have cognitive deficiencies)..............

 

[skookerasbil]