KittenKoder
Senior Member
Um ... head in the clouds too long? Bush increased spending for the environut scientists and pushed for some of the products they endorse to be forced onto people. Yeah ...
Only 34% believe Global Warming Caused by Humans
- Thread starter Sinatra
- Start date
Um ... head in the clouds too long? Bush increased spending for the environut scientists and pushed for some of the products they endorse to be forced onto people. Yeah ...
- Thread starter
- #22
Care to show proof of this generalized charge? Please list for me the academics who were fired for supporting the theory of man-made global warming?
KittenKoder
Senior Member
As a matter of fact, didn't Bush get one of the scientists who spoke up against global warming banned from that "inner circle" while he was in office?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Bush Administration Will Ignore Its Own Notice on CO2 Emissions
On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency finally released its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking for public comment on the issue of greenhouse gas emission regulation. The notice — which is not a formal policy proposal but merely a suggested framework for future action — is accompanied by statements from senior officials from across the Bush administration that disavow the document's substance.
Susan Dudley, head of the White House's regulatory clearinghouse, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the policy "cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration."
Other letters of disapproval came from the heads of the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Transportation, the White House Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Bush Administration Will Ignore Its Own Notice on CO2 Emissions | OMB Watch
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Word of the White House censoring federal climate scientists on global warming began leaking out to the press early in George W. BushÂ’s first term in office, but only in the last few years have a few federal employees themselves been willing to go on record with such accusations.
Federal Employees Report Climate Science Censorship
A report titled “Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research”, released last January by two leading nonprofits, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP), found that nearly half of 279 federal climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to “global warming” or “climate change” from scientific papers or reports, while many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work on the topic edited.
“The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,” says UCS’s Francesca Grifo. “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”
The issue first bubbled to the surface when Rick Piltz, who worked for a decade coordinating federal research on global warming as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program—first under President Clinton and then Bush—quit in mid-2005 alleging that his superiors were misusing and abusing the scientific information he was providing.
Climate Science Censorship - Federal Scientists Accuse Bush of Climate Science Censorship
How do I account for the melting of glaciers? Could be any number of factors. That the glaciers are melting back to points of revealed ground not revealed in 7000 years tells us two things:
1. The glaciers were not always at the points of expansion at which they have been for some time.
2. Temperatures 7000 years ago were falling from points warmer than today and those highs could not possibly have been caused by the activities of Man.
Is the pollution of the planet a thing we should try to fight? Very probably. Is anthropogenic pollution the cause of Global Warming? Not likely. Why is it a bad thing to lie about this? Well, lying about anything is not good.
If you were so concerned about public opinion, you'd be supporting Obama, since he has over a 60% approval rating.
Not to be gloom monger, but his approval is sliding pretty sharply. His administration seems a little befuddled by the world in areas of economics, international relations, commerce, immigration and taxation. According to Rasmussun, his approval is down to 54%. The honeymoon might be coming to an end.
That Venezuelan moron played our Prez like a violin. Americans don't like it when we get beat in a game like that one.
We won't prosecute the CIA or, wait, maybe, um, er, well, what the heck, I guess we will. Golly by schucks. Rove might have been Bush's brain, but at least Bush acted like he was using that brain.
I get the sense that Obama has grand ideas, but will let Pelosi and Reid do whatever they want. It kind of reminds me of Bush the First. He trusted the Democratic Congress and they screwed him. Now they're going to do it to Obama.
Oh, well. It's been awhile since Carter. We can all get a good look at him again.
Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
Overall, 54% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. ThatÂ’s his lowest total approval rating to date. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove. For more Presidential barometers, see Obama By the Numbers.
That is simply not true. Dr. Hansen famously, publicly and repeatedly said that he was being muzzled. This had to have been the worst job of muzzling ever done. The guy never shut his mouth throughout the entire Bush Adinistration. Eight years. Talking continuously and always complaining that he was muzzled.
If your assertion is true, two things would be true today that aren't:
1) We never would have heard of Hansen and
2) He would have been fired.
krotchdog
Rookie
- Apr 7, 2009
- 480
- 46
- 0
- Banned
- #31
Hansen famously got busted taking data from a hot month and presenting it as the data for a cooler month to falsely claim the cooler month was warm. One of the users here can attest to this fact.
This is all about government control and corporations making money. The effect on our lives, while if Obama really does hate america and is out to punish us, the best way is to cripple us financially. No one argues this is going to cost consumers higher prices for everything.
On a more technical note
Burkhart's Blog: Extinction is the Only Answer
Alan Burkhart got that little piece from:
Cold Facts on Global Warming
Also from the Alan Burkhart article and link I posted
This is all about government control and corporations making money. The effect on our lives, while if Obama really does hate america and is out to punish us, the best way is to cripple us financially. No one argues this is going to cost consumers higher prices for everything.
On a more technical note
Burkhart's Blog: Extinction is the Only Answer
Alan Burkhart got that little piece from:
Cold Facts on Global Warming
Also from the Alan Burkhart article and link I posted
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
No, Hansen recieved the wrong data. He did not use it knowing it was wrong. In fact, he immediatly changed the data base when he recieved the corrected data. And it changed that month from the hottest to the second hottest.
Very nicely done article. So what peer reviewed scientific journal was it first published in?
Unfortunetly, the physicists that make up the American Institute of Physics seem to have come up with a much differant conclusion. The same for every other Scientific Society in the world.
Very nicely done article. So what peer reviewed scientific journal was it first published in?
Unfortunetly, the physicists that make up the American Institute of Physics seem to have come up with a much differant conclusion. The same for every other Scientific Society in the world.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
American Geophysical Union policy statement on global warming;
AGU Revises Statement on Global Warming | DesertUSA News
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system - including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons - are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the period 1956-2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.
The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
AGU Revises Statement on Global Warming | DesertUSA News
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system - including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons - are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the period 1956-2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.
The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGEEmail | Print
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
APS Physics | APS Home
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
APS Physics | APS Home
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
Um, no he didn't.....
JohnStOnge
Member
- Jul 8, 2005
- 321
- 43
- 16
Not THAT again. As I've posted before, when that came out, I had no problem finding papers published in peer reviewed journals during that time frame that disagreed with the "consensus" position. If she didn't find any, she wasn't looking very hard. I guess if you make me I'll go ahead and do it again and give you some links. But, please, when you've got people like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer out there you're going to have articles published in peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "consensus" opinion.
And the point isn't whether or not you can engage in ad hominem attacks about how people like that get funding from Exxon or whether or not you think they were wrong. The point here is that they publish papers in peer reviewed journals that are contrary to the "global warming" consensus and this woman could only have missed them if she tried as hard as she could to do so.
amiam*
Member
What disturbs the scientific community is the rapidl increase in Co2 generation. I once told a firend: "The Earth cannot afford too many Americas with our culture. (As an after thought,You can't come between a man and his car[horse] for it is a symbol of his freedom.)
The roof has to fall down and hit him in the head before he'll respond. Such is life.
The roof has to fall down and hit him in the head before he'll respond. Such is life.
amiam*
Member
What disturbs the scientific community is the rapidl increase in Co2 generation. I once told a firend: "The Earth cannot afford too many Americas with our culture. (As an after thought,You can't come between a man and his car[horse] for it is a symbol of his freedom.)
The roof has to fall down and hit him in the head before he'll respond. Such is life.
The roof has to fall down and hit him in the head before he'll respond. Such is life.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
You presented two, to your credit. But the others that you posted were from political think tanks, not peer reviewed scientific journals.
When a scientist gets a research grant, he gets paid for research, irregardless of the conclusion. When Exxon puts out money, they pay for a conclusion favoring their interests. That is why they pay whores like Singer and Lindzen.
KittenKoder
Senior Member
Fixed it for you. They all get their money from companies and all work to make those products look good. However those who are not paid by government or companies I would trust.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
Top General in charge of Project Blue Book (UFOs) missing for over a week!- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 3
