Brasidas Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Who didn't see this latest inquisition coming? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_...ongress_climate By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 18 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress. The hearing focused on allegations that White House officials for years have micromanaged the government's climate programs and has closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public. "It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate. Climate change also was a leading topic in the Senate, where presidential contenders for 2008 lined up at a hearing called by Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record). They expounded — and at times tried to outdo each other — on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases. "This is a problem whose time has come," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proclaimed. "This is an issue over the years whose time has come," echoed Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said "for decades far too many have ignored the warning" about climate change. "Will we look back at today and say this was the moment we took a stand?" At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media. The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee. Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report. Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased. Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House. Some Republican members of the committee questioned whether science and politics ever can be kept separate. "I am no climate-change denier," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the committee, but he questioned whether "the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized." "The mere convergence of politics and science does not itself denote interference," said Davis. Administration officials were not called to testify. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change. President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly. Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said "the reality is that science and politics are intermixed." Pielke maintained that "scientific cherry picking" can be found on both sides of the climate debate. He took a swipe at the background memorandum Waxman had distributed and maintained that it exaggerated the scientific consensus over the impact of climate change on hurricanes. Waxman and Davis agreed the administration had not been forthcoming in providing documents to the committee that would shed additional light on allegations of political interference in climate science. "We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," said Waxman, adding that he is "not trying to obtain state secrets." At Boxer's Senate hearing, her predecessor as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., had his own view of the science. There is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing global warming, declared Inhofe, who once called global warming a hoax. "We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time." "I'll put you down as skeptical," replied Boxer.
Paul in Qatar Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 While certainly it is wise to be deliberative about major changes to public policy, the evidence clear and becoming clearer. Global warming, or call it what you will, is a threat to the future of the United States. It must be addressed, just as other threats must be. The Republicans hiding their head in the sand on this issue is as foolish as the Democrats hiding theirs on other issues. As the President said in the SotU address, we must act now and hope it is enough to preclude major damage.
Jim Martin Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 If this "Warming" trend continues, my Jeep won't be polluting much longer, as the ignition is really complaining lately when I try to start it at 2330 to go in to work.
Paul in Qatar Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 As a serious question, Jim, do you doubt the reality of Climate Change? (Global Warming is a screwy term after all.)
Doug Kibbey Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Who could doubt the reality of climate change. It has, after all, been going on for millions, nay....probably billions, of years since before the advent of man.
Rickard N Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I'm always suspicious when goverment decides what a scientist should focus on and what result he should get.Happens here in Sweden way way too often. If that doesn't make you guys a bit uneasy, I don't know what to think. /R
Jim Martin Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 As a serious question, Jim, do you doubt the reality of Climate Change? (Global Warming is a screwy term after all.) I accept global climate change as unquestionable scientific fact. Has occured, is occuring, and will occur so long as there is an atmosphere. I do NOT accept the current Chicken Little hand-wringing regarding anthropogenic warming as unquestioned scientific fact, and much of it is not based so much on science as on political agendas and cold, hard cash. Who's going to tell me that Egypt and North Africa ceased to be a breadbasket because of the Romans' cooking fires?
Matt Urbanski Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I have several problems with the science and politics of global warming / climate change: 1. The predictions made by most people in this field have consistently been way off, sometimes by an order of magnitude - but instead of admitting they were wrong, they claim success in correctly predicting an upward trend. As if there was any pride to be taken in getting something right that 50% of people could correctly guess by flipping a coin. 2. There's little concrete, non-politically motivated evidence that global warming is primarily influenced by human activities - and no evidence that we have any power to reverse the trend. I'd be in favor of taking steps to protect ourselves from the potential consequences of climate change, but I think trying to reverse a global climate trend is just spitting in the wind. 3. I think it's the height of idiocy for the 1st world to handicap itself when countries like Russia or China are never actually going to get with the program. They'll do what they've always done - lie about it while looking out for number one, and we'll end up in exactly the same place eventually, only after wasting a great deal of money on pointless environmental initiatives. Which isn't to say I don't want cleaner industry, but that's simply a matter of not shitting where you live, not of making grand but hopeless gestures.
Paul in Qatar Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Of course another issue is if we accept the idea of man-made global warming (and I think I do), what ought we to do? Ramp down industry to try to prevent more damage, or ramp up industry to make more sandbags. If the projections are true, this is an issue that could impact my where-to-retire decision. It seems to be an effect in the short-term.
Doug Kibbey Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Of course another issue is if we accept the idea of man-made global warming (and I think I do), what ought we to do? Ramp down industry to try to prevent more damage, or ramp up industry to make more sandbags. If the projections are true, this is an issue that could impact my where-to-retire decision. It seems to be an effect in the short-term. Regardless of where one comes down on this issue.....Since feedback loops inherently involve a significant lag phase (and this one very likely one that will outlive you), the point in your first sentence is probably irrelevant...no action that is taken in the short term is going to have an effect likely to impact your choice of retirement sites. Pick your fav and hope for the best!
Guest aevans Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 We'll deal with things as they happen, just like always. We're not powerful enough to do anything else. The global warming alarmists generate all this rattle and hum about what the eeevil corporations are doing to the world, but they have no clue just how much hubris it takes to think that anybody, themselves included, can plan and affect changes to a system as large as the Earth's biosphere.
Michael Donnelly Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 The global warming alarmists generate all this rattle and hum about what the eeevil corporations are doing to the world, but they have no clue just how much hubris it takes to think that anybody, themselves included, can plan and affect changes to a system as large as the Earth's biosphere.If only they could harness the energy from there own sense of self-satisfaction. That do‘er!
SILL2 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I'm always suspicious when goverment decides what a scientist should focus on and what result he should get.Happens here in Sweden way way too often. If that doesn't make you guys a bit uneasy, I don't know what to think. /R Boy you got that right. The endless piles of $ which the US taxpayer has over years "invested" in leftist professor to prove Global Warming (and the Americans have caused) dispicable. And yes I doubt. It's BS The "science" is primarily political. The opinions of REAL scientists are NOT at all conclusive. Will not have useful info until the AAR are complete (decades from now at least). We can not even accurately model continental weather much less global. Limited historical temp data only goes back some 100 years so the useful data on which to base models is totally inadequate. The Global Warming cabal can't even reproduce their ideas in a lab so they do not even rise to the level of theories. Have you ever seen an accurate 7day weather forecast? But You'll accept Global Warming? Are temp averages changing (going up or down) in any particular location from compared to last year, 1900, 1000. No doubt. But which way we won't know for many years from now. Actions of mankind having appreciable contribution to whatever is going on? Perhaps 0.1% of the total influencers. This entire "issue" is mostly religious. The Luddite leftists think themselves onipitent. They CAN remake the world by the power of their desires. Man can in days/years change the entire climate of the world (in any direction) by their actions. See also peace in the mideast/the Islamist "issues". The silly claims postulated by the left and their pocket "scientists" alone are enough to redicule the concept. "temps will rise 3degrees in the next 10year and the world will end for 100 species of birds. Now really. Daily temps vary over a 30degree range seasons by more. The damn bird doesn't know the difference between 63 degree and 66degress. Do you without ref to a thermometer. Oh Rino John McCain has decreed Global Warming is real and we MUST act. Bullocks.
SILL2 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 If the projections are true, this is an issue that could impact my where-to-retire decision. It seems to be an effect in the short-term. Most anywhere has to be a major improvement from your current local.
philgollin Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Of course another issue is if we accept the idea of man-made global warming (and I think I do), what ought we to do? .................. The majority of the western world accepted this way back in 1994 and signed off on the Kyoto agreement. Many countries have actually tried to work diligently to that accord, although only 2 or 3 are forecast to acheive their commitments. It has only been the minority of western countries who have had the political blinkers on.
T19 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 As a serious question, Jim, do you doubt the reality of Climate Change? (Global Warming is a screwy term after all.)Climate change is as normal as the sun riseing in teh east and setting in the West. The debate is over if mankid is the cause, and will paying China to pollute to ease Western guilt will stop it. I think not.
Brad Sallows Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 >the evidence clear and becoming clearer. Yes. There is evidence of many things, all around us. The question is, what is the cause of the evidence? Get the cause wrong, and you try to fix the wrong problem, or no problem at all. It could turn out that natural causes dominate; it might even be the case that we can mitigate natural causes. You can't mitigate that which you haven't correctly identified. Mitigating any type of climate change would be expensive. It doesn't worry me that western lifestyles might be set back somewhat. It would worry me if an economic setback were sufficient to push many developing nations back to coal and wood as energy sources. I suspect that would tend to militate, not mitigate.
Richard Lindquist Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Even without the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption by the western world, the earth is in a natural warming trend. We are coming out of a "little ice age". The world is warmer now than it was when I was a lad growing up in Michigan. We do have evidence that the world has been much warmer in the geologic past and also much colder. Even in historical times, Greenland supported grain crops during the Viking era. There was a "cooldown" begining about 1200 that both ended Viking power and ended the malaria which was ravaging southern Europe. This cooldown resulted in the Little Ice Age which bottomed out somewheres aound 1650. The question is "how much has man added to the current warming cycle?" I would like to hear from a group of scientists that do not have a political ax to grind on this one.
Guest aevans Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 The majority of the western world accepted this way back in 1994 and signed off on the Kyoto agreement. Many countries have actually tried to work diligently to that accord, although only 2 or 3 are forecast to acheive their commitments. It has only been the minority of western countries who have had the political blinkers on. Oooh... us evil 'muricans strike again...
Yama Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Have you ever seen an accurate 7day weather forecast? But You'll accept Global Warming? Weather is not same as climate. I do not know whether it is going to snow next Tuesday - but I do know that it is not going to snow next July. Actions of mankind having appreciable contribution to whatever is going on? Perhaps 0.1% of the total influencers. And you have arrived at this figure how? The silly claims postulated by the left and their pocket "scientists" alone are enough to redicule the concept. "temps will rise 3degrees in the next 10year and the world will end for 100 species of birds. Now really. Daily temps vary over a 30degree range seasons by more. The damn bird doesn't know the difference between 63 degree and 66degress. Do you without ref to a thermometer. Sorry, but this kind of comments show that you have no idea on the subject. 3 degree rise in average temperatures would indeed be rather dramatic.
Guest aevans Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Sorry, but this kind of comments show that you have no idea on the subject. 3 degree rise in average temperatures would indeed be rather dramatic. That's right -- anybody that doesn't play ball is an ignorant boob, but nobody that does play ball can explain the global warming crisis theory in logical, quantifiable terms. It's always, "We're Scientists, trust us on this." Horsecrap -- I can explain even some of the deepest intricacies of computer organization and programming to an interested layman who can do a little algebra. When client "scientists" can do the same for me with their subject, I'll be more likely to pay attention.
Yama Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 That's right -- anybody that doesn't play ball is an ignorant boob, but nobody that does play ball can explain the global warming crisis theory in logical, quantifiable terms. It's always, "We're Scientists, trust us on this." Horsecrap -- I can explain even some of the deepest intricacies of computer organization and programming to an interested layman who can do a little algebra. When client "scientists" can do the same for me with their subject, I'll be more likely to pay attention. Oh, they've done it - it's just that as you said, you don't pay attention, because you have pre-formulated opinion based on erraneous interpretation of "common sense".
Guest aevans Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Oh, they've done it - it's just that as you said, you don't pay attention, because you have pre-formulated opinion based on erraneous interpretation of "common sense". I have to call BS on that one, Yama. I have yet to see a logical explanation -- or any explanation that doesn't rely on special pleading and/or appeals to someone's own authority.
Brad Sallows Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 >Oh, they've done it - it's just that as you said, you don't pay attention, because you have pre-formulated opinion based on erraneous interpretation of "common sense". Some of us just have a pre-formulated skepticism: when a group of people claim to explain complex phenomena in a science which is in its infancy, I tend to think they're making a barely educated guess. Hari Seldon they aren't. While top-drawer intellects are struggling to come up with comparatively simple ideas like GUT, I'm wondering how the somewhat more mediocre brains tackling climate science have managed to resolve the major questions in their field of study in a few years. My instinct is that if they're right, they got really, really, really lucky on their first cut.
Mk 1 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) It has, after all, been going on ... since before the advent of man.I do NOT accept the current Chicken Little hand-wringing regarding anthropogenic warming as unquestioned scientific fact, and much of it is not based so much on science as on political agendas ...I think it's the height of idiocy for the 1st world to handicap itself when countries like Russia or China are never actually going to get with the program. ...Since feedback loops inherently involve a significant lag phase ....no action that is taken in the short term is going to have an effect likely to impact your choice .... Pick your fav and hope for the best!We'll deal with things as they happen, just like always. We're not powerful enough to do anything else.It's BS The "science" is primarily political. The opinions of REAL scientists are NOT at all conclusive. The question is, what is the cause of the evidence? Get the cause wrong, and you try to fix the wrong problem, or no problem at all. It could turn out that natural causes dominate; it might even be the case that we can mitigate natural causes. You can't mitigate that which you haven't correctly identified.We do have evidence that the world has been much warmer in the geologic past and also much colder. ... The question is "how much has man added to the current warming cycle?" I would like to hear from a group of scientists that do not have a political ax to grind on this one. That's right ... nobody that does play ball can explain the global warming crisis theory in logical, quantifiable terms. ... When client "scientists" can do the same for me with their subject, I'll be more likely to pay attention.Remarkable. Absolutely remarkable. Concerned neighbor: Your furnace is overheating. There is a danger you will burn down the whole building. Apartment dweller: I see no conclusive evidence. Concerned neighbor: Several of your neighbors have hired furnace repairmen recently. The tenant's association has paid for a building safety inspection every quarter for the last year. The fire department took a look, and gave us their data. The city sent a code enforcement inspector, who gave us a report. All in all we've had more than a dozen furnace repairmen or inspectors in to the building, and they have identified the same problem more than a dozen times. You can see their reports. Your furnace is overheating. There is a great danger. Apartment dweller: I have three reports that each say there is no problem. Concerned neighbor: What reports are those? Apartment dweller: I have paid five different inspectors to give me reports. Concerned neighbor: But you said you had only three reports. What about the other two? Apartment dweller: I have no data from them. I tore up the first one's report. He said the wrong things, so his data was invalid. The other one refused to stop saying the wrong things. I fired him for insubordination. Concerned neighbor: So you pay people to tell you all is well when your furnace is clearly overheating? Apartment dweller: I need to have a balance of opinions to reach a well reasoned conclusion. Concerned neighbor: But you already decided your conclusion before you saw any of the data! The only guys who give you data to match your conclusions are the guys you pay to give you answers to match your conclusions -- and even when you pay them 40% of them can't find the data to match with your conclusions. Apartment dweller: You are politicizing the whole process. Concerned neighbor: I'm politicizing it? How? What possible political motive to I have? Do you deny that there is smoke pouring out of your furnace closet? Apartment dweller: You are jealous! You want me to turn down my heater. I like my apartment hot. Concerned neighbor: But there is smoke pouring out. LOOK. RIGHT THERE! SEE? SEE THE SMOKE? It will catch fire! And it will burn down the whole building! Apartment dweller: I don't like to look at the furnace closet. I pay other people to do that for me. I haven't seen any smoke. Do you have any conclusive evidence of your so-called smoke? Any evidence that smoke and over-heating are related? Other than some experts' data (the experts are still debating it, you know). Besides, even if my heater WAS overheating, you have no conclusive evidence that heat creates fires. Nor that reducing the heat will stop fires. How do I know that turning off the furnace will not make a fire more likely? Besides, apartments burn down all the time. Lots of apartments have burned down in the past. Maybe this apartment is just destined to burn down. I can't be bothered to spend my time worrying about destiny. No, there are simply too many unknowns to reach any CONCLUSION that my furnace is a danger. With no valid conclusive evidence, I can only assume that you, all the others in the building, all the inspectors, you all have joined together to make all of that up to support your political agenda! So I won't turn my furnace down. Its all political! Concerned neighbor: It sure is... It might provide enough material for a comedy ... if it weren't such a tradgedy already. -Mark 1 Edited February 1, 2007 by Mk 1
Recommended Posts