Science – More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
419)
Gee, do ya think?
Is there no end to this madness? Why isn't this crazy person being removed from office? I think there is enough evidence here not to trust this with our WMD.
The Republicans have been fighting science since Reagan. For example, they hate climate science in general and environmentalism in specific because it elevates concerns for the least among us, including wildlife and the human poor, above profit. Science overall does not support "free market" ideology or their theology.
ST. PETERSBURG, August 25, 2006 (RIA Novosti)- Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian scientist said Friday.
... a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.
"On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate's global warming at the start of the 22nd century," said the head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences' astronomical observatory.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century - could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause...
Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity....
"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity,
It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere... So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
Interesting - Roger Angel, a University of Arizona boffin in the field of astronomical adaptive optics, has been looking at ways to cool the Earth in just such an emergency. Chiefly, he's been studying the practicality of deploying shade devices in space to shield the Earth from the Sun's radiation. NASA thought the idea had potential and funded him six months ago to develop the concept further. Now, his first paper on the idea has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Angel's plan involves launching a flotilla of trillions of small free-flying spacecraft a million miles above Earth into an orbit aligned with the sun, called the L1 Lagrange orbit. The spacecraft would form a long, cylindrical cloud about 4,000 miles in diameter and 60,000 miles in length.
Global cooling effect
Terence Corcoran, National Post
Published: Saturday, September 16, 2006
News that the Conservatives might be taking a more cautious approach to Kyoto and climate change could not come at a more appropriate time. The science behind the idea of man-made global warming, always theoretical and often speculative, appears set to receive another blow. A report in New Scientist magazine yesterday chronicles the work of a crew of scientists who forecast a new wave of global cooling brought on by a decline in activity in the sun.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor; Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," (Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed "The Cooling World," (April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling. New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable"
Global cooling has begun!
G. Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and his colleagues have been tracking the movements of past ice sheets using the trails of rocky debris they leave behind on the ocean floor. A type of igneous rock called "gabbro" is indicative of the passage of past ice sheets. For example, 100,000 years ago, when the last ice age began, the amount of gabbro in ocean-floor sediments jumped from 2% to 8%. Despite all today's furor over global warming, Bond et al are finding in current ocean sediments the same gabbro precursors. Conclusion: a new ice age is in the making.
(Anonymous; "Big Freeze," New Scientist, p. 21, December 20/27, 1997.)
The only WMD is his head, and he cannot even find it.
It's where the sun don't shine ... His solution to global warming.
DAVIDHALKO WROTE:
"I think the "global warming" folks are conveniently ignoring evidence that does not fit their political funding initiatives."
There there are bound to be anomalous fluctuations within the data. Really, you must examine multiple indicators on a a wider timescale and geographical region to see the overall trend and not be fooled by anomalies within the overall trend.
However, this article indicates the opposite result: that Arctic sea ice has diminished to record low levels. According to the article:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
"Beginning in 2002, Arctic sea ice summertime minima dropped to unprecedented lows."
It acknowledges that global warming by greenhouse gases may have had an effect, but that it was probably also affected by Arctic Oscillations (AO).
continued
In fact, global warming doesn't suppose that all regions of the Earth are warming at the same rate, or even warming at all. It merely states that the average global temperatures are rising. To cherry-pick isolated regions of decreasing temperature, therefore, does not debunk the empirical observation that as a whole the Earth's annual temperature averages are increasing.
Furthermore, it's unwise to use Antarctic/Arctic sea ice levels to make global predictions for two reasons:
(1) Global warming seems to affect the mid-latitudes more than other regions of Earth. I don't believe scientists know for certain the reason why this is so, although there are several hypotheses.
(2) The Artic/Antarctic latitudes are the sites of all sorts of anomalous meteorological phenomena: ozone hole, auroras, etc. This makes it difficult to extend climatological trends that apply to the Arctic/Antarctic regions to the rest of the globe.
I think that if man would have invented the automobile 600,000,000 years ago, we could have saved the planet from the Ice Age, and saved all the dinosaur. What do you think?
Lastly, limiting the cry for a reduction of hydrocarbon combustion to global warming is short-sighted. If you don't believe in global warming, at least acknowledge that:
(1) dinitrogen pentoxide, sulfur trioxide, and carbon dioxide combustion byproducts hurt the environment by precipitating as acid rain.
(2) hydrocarbons are a nonrenewable resource, which necessitates research into alternative energy sources.
(3) our reliance on hydrocarbons harms our national security as it ties us politically, economically, and militarily to the regions from which oil is extracted, which unfortunately happen to be some of the most politically unstable parts of the world
(4) prolonged inhalation of pollutants, smog, and other airborne particles has been shown to exacerbate respiratory diseases (asthma, etc.) and has been linked to increases in cases of other respiratory illnesses (cancer)
Whatever your reasons, hydrocarbon combustion needs to be reduced.
Well this article says you are wrong!
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRe
as does this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4471135.
and this one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157
David,
I don't care who is right or wrong on this issue as a whole. What bothers me is that, again, the white house is stifling scientists that don't agree with the white house position. They are forcing the scientists to change their papers so that the outcome of the reports is, in some cases, completly different than what was originally submitted.
To have an honest debate about this subject we should get honest reports! Not reports doctored by the White House to completly change what the report says.
Honest debate requires Honesty from every one involved espcially the White House!!!
"Let all the data come out and all views be expressed."
If that is the way you truly feel then why are you defending an administration that has sought to suppress such data?
David, when the white house says that political people will decide what is put into the scientific report than that is suppressing data for political reasons.
If they want a countervailing opinion find another scientist that agees with them. Let both be heard, let us debate all the data. Don't suppress what you don't like. This type of attitude is what made people believe the reports of WMD's in Iraq. Let all the infromation get out so that we have everyting to look at not just one opinion. And since when did we ask scientists to be data neutral in a debate?
YOU KNOW THE OLD SAYING. YOUR CHECK IS COMING FROM ME (GOVERMENT), YOU WILL DO AS I (GOVERMENT AGAIN)SAY! ONLY MAKES SENSE. YOU BE CRAZY TO PUT DOWN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING YOU.
According the story, 1600 surveys were sent out and only 279 responded. What about the other 1300 surveys? Why weren't they returned? Could it be that these 1300 recipients didn't feel the survey was worth their time? With only 279 responses, it submit that this is a greatly overstated survey and considering the political aspects of the organizations involved, I smell a rat. Not all members of the Union of Concerned Scientist are even scientists. It is a political organization with political agendas that drive their statements, not science.
And now all you warmers explain this: How come Mars is experiencing global warming. Are Martians burning fossil fuel or perhaps the sun has a greater influence on planetary climate than humans do?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age
Maybe the other 1300 surveyed scientists were to afraid for their jobs to answer. At least we know there is a small minority of honest scientists.
Abrion - If only one was bullied it shouldn't sit well with you. This is not how our government should behave. I have to say that I think in the end GW will be good for this country because there is no way his likes will ever set foot back into our White House. Thank god it's the last we will see of the BUSHES!
"Could it be that these 1300 recipients didn't feel the survey was worth their time?"
So you're suggesting that you can't conceive of ANY other possible reasons they might not have returned their surveys, right?
No, you yourself said, "has stifled scientists..." which means you even present it as fact. It is not merely suspicion.
David, why would the White House need to force anybody to change their opinion? Who came forward and said they were forced to chane their opinion? It makes more sense to admit to global warming and then be able to spend billions on government programs to alter the course, not the other way around. Hello................
Searunner posted links: From one of those links:
Headline: Antarctic glaciers retreating
"As for the cause, the researchers caution against jumping to conclusions. At present, they say it is unclear whether humans are entirely to blame for the rise in temperatures, via burning fossil fuels and any contribution to the enhanced greenhouse effect."
Was this "Cherry Picked" for effect. I would say so since the writter failed to mention the fact that overall the glacires on Antartica are actually getting larger? .
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glacier
Scientists have posited that the Antarctic system will slow global warming but not stop or reverse it and will eventually succumb too. So don't get so excited about Antarctic glaciers growing or Antarctic cooling.
Data states Antarctic Glaciers and many others around the globe are growing. Climate change is occurring now as it has every day since earth began. Is it a "Man Made" change? That is the question vast sums of money are attempting to determine. The data that is presented by both sides of the issue is at odds. Just 30 years ago the scientific community told us we were entering a mini ice age. Today that same scientific community is telling us we "Humans living in the USA" in particular, are at fault. Why, because we consume to much of the worlds resources some say. Is there an ulterior motive to these claims? One problem I see on Netscape is if one questions the "Man Made CO2" argument, comments get a negative rating, your personal character is assaulted, and insults are projected toward that poster. I could care less but one thing is for sure. The people who claim to want debate do not want to hear from those that don't buy into the man made theory.
You don't "buy" into it, because you don't read, period. Go grab a Scientific American, a Discovery, or any science magazine and read the articles. Get up on some scientific websites and read the information. What you are going to find is scientific data that does not agree with your little philosophy. You are probably too busy reading your Bible, your TV Guide or too busy watching football to even know what the REAL scientists are saying. Here's something new. Turn off Rush Limbaugh, or whatever Nazi lunatic you listen to, and open a book.
Actually I was in between phone calls on some real estate negotiations, but that is here no there. Also, Thank you for proving my point about personal insults that go out to those with a different viewpoint than yours. I could not have done it any better than you have. In fact I gave your post a good rating.
Perhaps you could bestow upon my wholly unsubstantial intelligence some of your superior knowledge on the subject. I just have a few questions.
1) What percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources?
2) What percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made?
3) What is the number one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?
I look forward to your answers.
Don't hold your breath! LOL..
I am no tree hugger and the Global Warmingers can take a hike..
I do have one question for the general audience that I agree with and read a few posts up.
What the hell is wrong with cleaning up the pollutants in the environment simply for the sake of keeping a cleaning environment? We breathe in the Air, drink the Water, neither of which we can live without.
Regardless of how one feels about Global Warming or Glbal Freezing, why can't the world focus on cleaning up an environment that we all live in.
Do all the people who are on one extrme side of this debate o the other wait until their house is a complete pigsty before they start to clean it up? Do they only clean up if guests are coming over? This is one and only planet, wht the hell are we arguing about whether we should try to clean the environment or not?
Your question is exactly what environmentalism is about. Call me an extremist, but at the core it's about OUR environment and not pooping in the pool. Ultimately, environmentalism is about consideration of all.
You make a very interesting point that I have suspected is the view of many. There is an argument that you and others constantly make in regards to the debate on man made global warming. The argument centers on the presumption that those that question the "Man Made CO2 induced Global Warming THEORY" somehow are FOR pollution. Speaking for myself of course, I can 100% say to you that I am not for polluting the earth. I am for clean renewable energy sources in fact use a small amount of solar energy in my home (Pool Heater). I LOVE the idea of energy independence from foreign sources. Sometimes I wonder if the institutional environmentalist movement is pushing the theory so hard, without conclusive evidence to support the theory I might add, for other reasons other than the pure science being presented from many sources. And if so Why?
But can't the same be said for people against the theory of climate change. There must be a reason that the Bush administration is fighting it so hard. There are political gains on both sides. Why not take the politics out of it and just clean things up for the sake of our children's children.
capecoralM, Thank you for for the links on this subject, I also have asked the same questions and have gotten the same answers. None. This is typical from the far left people.
Do your own reading. If you did you wouldn't have to ask. Here's a few URLs: sciencedaily.com and realclimate.org, scientificamerican.com, nature.com.
No need to be rude is there?
More liberal name calling.
shankari25, I have to say you need to quit reading these so called scientific magazines, the truth is if you scare enough people into believing you there will be no problem getting Government grants. Open your eyes it is all about the funding, no Global warming,no funds.
"Open your eyes it is all about the funding, no Global warming,no funds."
Oh, come on...The neocons will ignore global warming or any scientific evidence which might obfuscate what they see as their God-given right to exploit our planet's resources for a buck. I think "No global warming, no $$ for corporate America" would be more accurate.
"Data states Antarctic Glaciers and many others around the globe are growing."
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/FAQs/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060330_warm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s14299
Here you go capecoral... The ice age from the 1970s has also already been debunked look it up... Or do you want me to provide that as well? I've repeated that argument to many times for you to choose to be ignorant on it...
Researchers with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Longterm Ecological Research (LTER) site in Antarctica's Dry Valleys - a perpetually snow-free, mountainous area adjacent to McMurdo Sound - argue in the paper that long-term data from weather stations across the continent, coupled with a separate set of measurements from the Dry Valleys, confirm each other and corroborate the continental cooling trend.
"Our 14-year continuous weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade," they write. "The temperature decrease is most pronounced in summer and autumn. Continental cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change."
The findings are puzzling because many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend...
David,
Scientists make money in the real world. Nothing screams "special interest" than business. Business has no interest in truth but in propaganda that ensures profit. Science is pure because of open peer review.
You obviously don't want to hear the whole story because it's been out there for years now. HINT: Go to actual scientific papers and read what the actual scientists have to say. Go to sciencedaily.com and search through the articles there. Go to realclimate.org to see what the real climatologists have to say. The agenda of science is to provide true information for open debate to ultimately provide answers to today's questions.
Prove that they're wrong. It's that simple.
The real problem is that government should not be concerned with profit but has been hijacked to be an agent for business (contributors) rather than an agent for the people. It's that simple.
Scientists working for the government and environmental groups face peer review, and suffer for cover-ups. Scientists working for business don't because business controls the information provided to the public.
Give me a break. Prove that any of the climatologists' subsistence is based on fear! Prove it already.
You don't have a damn clue about what you're talking about here. You don't understand that the data from all sides is under constant scrutiny do you? The research is published and debated and the meaning of research data is debated. To claim that we must "consider seriously" only indicates that you live in some ideological world.
How much do read of the peer reviews? Do you read the journals or do you just read what the media presents? The mainstream media has chosen sides and it is the global warming side. If you want to educate yourself on this debate, stay away from the mainstream media and political organizations. The scientific debate is facinating and I believe we still have much to learn. Unfortunately, politics has inserted its corruptive influences into the field and muddied the water. I started college in an environmental studies program but decided to go elsewhere as I didn't want to deal with the political aspects of the field.
Are you kidding me? Mainstream media (MSM) provide the intricacies of any scientific debate? Give me a break. All MSM provides are the distilled and simplified findings for popular consumption.
That politics has intruded into the scientific debate is the point of the article and exactly what scientists are complaining about.
People (even with scientific degrees) will write any thing their pay check writers want. That is why they are hired.
You've mistaken them for big oil...