Bush covers up climate research

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:56 pm

Well do you think he is? I'm not given to conspiracy theories but I do claim to be cynical when it comes to big business and politicians.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 63,00.html

Emails and internal government documents obtained by The Observer show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that the problem is serious. They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:58 pm

I've read it twice now so it must be true!:yh_giggle

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:47 am

There's a documentary on sunday on the issue which I will watch if I remember it's on.. Fairly serious allegations if true.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:12 am

I came across another big coverup story involving a mining operation http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ ... 9889.shtml

Ã¢â‚¬ÂI had never seen anything so corrupt and lawless in my entire career as what I saw regarding interference with a federal investigation of the most serious environmental disaster in the history of the Eastern United States,Ã¢â‚¬Â says Spadaro.

Who is Jack Spadaro? He's a man who's devoted his life to the safety of miners and the safety of people who live near mines.

Spadaro was seeking protection through the whistleblower's act after refusing to sign a severely watered down report.

It will be interesting to see if specific instances are combined or if they just focus on one incident. Even if that one incident is huge, it likely will not excite people enough unless they build a multiple case of negligence.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:42 am

gmc wrote: There's a documentary on sunday on the issue which I will watch if I remember it's on.. Fairly serious allegations if true.

It's on today, gmc.

Don't forget. I can't watch it (if I knew the channel) because I have to go out most the day today so I'm relying on you.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:19 am

I forgot it was on and missed most of it. It's discussed openly here but I get the inpression that is does not in the states. I was curious to see if that was an accurate impression. Given that the states is being hit by hurricanes etc out of the norm surely believing that global warming won't affect them is not an option.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:22 am

Diuretic wrote: Like most things we will collectively wake up to the fact that we've been lied to just before it's too late.

I might be a bit cynical and perhaps even a little obtuse but I try to sort out competing claims by looking at whose interests are best served by each claim.

1. We have Bush and his mates saying, in effect, there is no such thing as global warming, it's a natural phenomenon etc. etc. Who stands to gain from the general public swallowing that one? Feel free to supply your own answer to yourself.

2. We have a bunch of other people, mainly scientists and environmental activists telling us that humans in the last x hundred years have damaged the Earth's environment and we are now seeing accelerated climate change. Now, ask yourself, who stands to gain what from that claim?

I'm not sitting on the fence. I don't believe Bush and his camp for one second because Bush and his crew represent those big corporations that stand to lose money from the realisation that the Earth is basically in trouble, environmentlly speaking. The other mob, in number 2, stand to gain nothing at all, materially at least. Sure, there may be the odd enviro-nutcase in there but on balance it seems to be concern for the Earth rather than the shareholder and profit and loss statement. I'm going with the mob in 2. We're in trouble and I for one intend to support any politician who takes note of it and promises to act rather than one who refuses to believe it's happening.

It's a bit like Pascal's Wager in a way. If I back number 2 I can't lose.Oh PLEASE! The scientists have books and other publications, lecture tours, TV appearances, etc that stirring up panic would enhance. Make no mistake, both sides are spinning as fast as they can. The (relative) truth lies completely undisturbed somewhere in the middle.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:41 am

Diuretic wrote: There may be books, publications etc. and yes there's some money in there but compared to the multi-billion dollar profits to be made by corporations which want to toddle along, business as usual, without having to change the way they operate (and incur expense) or even to go out of business in the public interest.

I don't think in this situation we can afford to look for any "relative truth" - there's a propaganda term if ever I read one. In this there is only one choice and that's to look for the singular, objective truth. Either global warming is affecting us adversely now because of our industrial activities and will do so in the future, or it's not. There is no comfortable, middle of the road refuge in this one. We either take heed and change or we ignore, pooh-pooh and keep going as we are.
I'm not disagreeing with you, D. I think it's only prudent to assume we might be able to delay/slow/stop global warming, and act in that direction. I'm simply pointing out that everybody has a dog in this fight.

Rhetorical question:

If we act to stop global warming and are wrong, what harm is done?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:05 am

Diuretic wrote: Yep fair points Accountable. I should state my own position is arrived at late, I am not by any means a radical environmentalist (I find their quasi-religious fervour off-putting) and I have what I think is a healthy level of reality (some might call it cynicism) as regards the debate. Not being of a scientific bent I am in no position to discuss the science, I tend to look at things a little obscurely (as I've perhaps indicated).

You rhetorical question is a good one and far from rhetorical. It has to be asked as a counter. I haven't got an answer although I think I can see what you're driving at - the economic harm done would be considerable and the environmental payoff would be nil which would mean the result is much misery.

We need to keep asking that question and others, on all sides of the debate. But we need to be sure that our governments aren't lying to us or at least not keeping us properly informed.I can apply every syllable of this post to me. We're definitely parallel in this respect.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:44 pm

posted by accountable

Rhetorical question:

If we act to stop global warming and are wrong, what harm is done?

We're used to very high fuel prices in the UK, even without global warming oil is a finite resource that arguably we use for more important things than just burning in our cars to get around in and costs will rise as demand continues to grow. The US is particularly vulnerable, just for economic and strategis reasons you would think it woudl be a major issue.

In europe the reality is we might be dependant on Russia for energy. Now that might generate research in to alternatives sources.

I'll be dead but I suspect our great grand children will look back and wonder what we were thinking of

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:09 pm

There is no such thing as Global Warming.. it's a myth.

Raymond

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:36 am

Raymond,

Are you for real?

Or are you just being a 'bomb tosser' again?

Someone here just loves to stir the pot . . .

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:18 am

I'm not trying to stir the pot... necessarily..

I don't know what "fact" it is that has convinced you that there is such a thing as Global Warming.. but their isn't.

The planet is not in grave danger of overheating, the ice caps are not melting at an abnormal rate, and you can stop panicking about the doom that you had thought was just around the corner.

Raymond

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:39 am

I'm willing to support the free market to do something about it, but the gov't can keep its mitts off. That'll be the best thing, imo.

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:41 am

Diuretic wrote: I think there's a heap of facts Raymond and gathered together they support the idea that there is increased global warming. It seems to me that it would be prudent for nations to do something about it. Now I have a zero-scientific mind but I'm prepared to put my vote to work for this proposition.

I don't doubt that you think there are a lot of facts that support global warming.. but there aren't.

I have looked into this in pretty great detail.. and the theory (if you can call it that) is a farce.

I'm sorry.. I know a lot of people have a lot of emotion invested in this doom and gloom.. but it's just a myth.

Raymond

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:45 pm

Captain Ray wrote: There is no such thing as Global Warming.. it's a myth.

Raymond

No one in their right mind has ever contested that Global warming is happening. The only debate is the cause of it. A small number of scientists don't think that humans have played much of a role in it. No scientist says it isn't happening.

Perhaps you were talking in your sleep.

ETA: I shouldn't say "has ever" but no scientist since 2001. It is now 2006.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:55 pm

Thank you, Koan.

You have expressed yourself far more elequently than I did. But we agree:)

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:06 pm

koan wrote: No one in their right mind has ever contested that Global warming is happening. The only debate is the cause of it. A small number of scientists don't think that humans have played much of a role in it. No scientist says it isn't happening.

Perhaps you were talking in your sleep.

ETA: I shouldn't say "has ever" but no scientist since 2001. It is now 2006.

No.. you are wrong. Lots of scientists who (at least claim to be) are in their "right mind" contest this concept (it's not a theory.. it's a concept.. you should try and be clear in that regard) of Global Warming.

It's not a matter of scientists debating whether or not humans caused it either.. because it isn't happening!! LOL

Global Warming is a political manifestation.. not a scientific one. I am looking forward to you, or anybody else, who can give me one single fact that proves Global Warming is occurring.. in fact.. I am looking forward to you or anyone else who can even give me a concrete definition of what "Global Warming" is?!

Good luck..

Raymond

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:00 pm

Capt. Ray wrote: No.. you are wrong. Lots of scientists who (at least claim to be) are in their "right mind" contest this concept (it's not a theory.. it's a concept.. you should try and be clear in that regard) of Global Warming.

It's not a matter of scientists debating whether or not humans caused it either.. because it isn't happening!! LOL

here's your skeptics page on scientific debate. There are three arguments.

1. The Earth is not warming

2. The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown

3. The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes

The Earth is not warming

There have not been any scientists since 2001 who express the opinion that evidence of global warming is inconclusive or who are skeptical that temperatures have risen the 0.6 Ã‚Â± 0.2 Ã‚Â°C as advanced by the IPCC.

Scientific agreement on fact put the ball in your court to prove it isn't true, not in mine to prove what is known.

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:23 pm

koan wrote: here's your skeptics page on scientific debate. There are three arguments.

1. The Earth is not warming

2. The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown

3. The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes

Scientific agreement on fact put the ball in your court to prove it isn't true, not in mine to prove what is known.

LOL.. So rather than point out any single fact to prove that there is such a thing as global warming.. you choose to presume what my arguments might be and tell me I need to explain them to you.. well I can explain them to you.. but I fear you are not ready to understand.

Disproving Global Warming is kind of like telling a child there is no Santa Clause. I know it breaks your heart, because you believe..... you really believe.... but Dude... there is no Santa Clause.. I'm sorry.. now it's time to grow up.

Raymond

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:51 pm

William Gray, a lean, six-foot-five emeritus professor at Colorado State University and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms...

Gray doesn't believe in the planetary emergency. Never has. Still, he picks his words carefully. A few weeks ago, a Washington Post article quoted him comparing [sic] (AL) Gore's convictions about global warming to Hitler's beliefs about the Jews, a burst of rhetorical overkill he says he sincerely regrets. So he's going to try to sound a diplomatic note here, even though the book, which some colleagues have asked him to review, strikes him as a piece of outright hysteria.

....

The people who are spreading the global-warming alarm, including the scientists, just don't understand the way the atmosphere works, he says. The ones who see a link between increasing ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes in recent decades don't understand the ocean or hurricanes. The global computer models projecting that heat-trapping greenhouse gases will warm the earth between three and seven degrees Fahrenheit in the next hundred years -- melting polar ice, flooding shorelines and disrupting weather patterns everywhere -- are fatally flawed.

Source

Dr. Gray is one of those skeptical scientists that you never heard of that has spoken out since 2001... that article was printed in June, 2006... fairly contemporary by most standards.

Raymond

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:24 pm

since I am thinking about it.. I better jot it down so I don't forget...

Did you ever wonder why Al Gore.. who is not a scientist by anybodies measure.. who did not earn a PHD, but taught as a professor at Cornell as a Professor of Journalism, who wrote a book, and produced a move called "Inconsistent Lies" (I think that is the name of it.. I don't remember...)

Why does anybody listen to this idiot? I wouldn't give that guy a job washing a goats ass.. much less making public policy!!

Just a thought...

Raymond

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:50 am

Dr. Gray falls under category 2.

It does not injure me or affect the opinion of the rest of the world if I submit to your decision to believe what you do, Ray. I've thought about it and decided I would be wasting time to argue this with you.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:55 am

Captain Ray wrote: LOL.. So rather than point out any single fact to prove that there is such a thing as global warming.. you choose to presume what my arguments might be and tell me I need to explain them to you.. well I can explain them to you.. but I fear you are not ready to understand.

Disproving Global Warming is kind of like telling a child there is no Santa Clause. I know it breaks your heart, because you believe..... you really believe.... but Dude... there is no Santa Clause.. I'm sorry.. now it's time to grow up.

Raymond

There is no single fact but rather a body of evidence that put together lead to the concluscion that global warming is happening. You might disagree with the conclusion but unless you can disprove each part of the factual evidence then you need to come up with a different explanation for all the changes.

The polar ice caps are melting.

Sea temperatures do seem to be rising.

The US has been hit by a record number of powerful hurricanes.

The US is being hit by record numbers of tornadoes.

(or are tornadoes and hurricanes the same? I can't remember. I remember watching the wizard of oz as a kid and seeing a twister on film for the first time. Never having-I thought it was a made up but very unrealistic part of the fairy story It was only years later-and still never having seen one-I came to appreciate they do exist. Just because you haven't seen a natural phenomenon for yourself doesn't mean you should disbelief those who have or laugh at those that try and explain how it works)

If you don't think it is global warming then what is it.

If you can accept that climate has changed in the past why do you have a problem with the idea that mankind can make things worse? Even if you dismiss all that mankind is part of the problem why do you think cliamate change is not a cause for concern.

If the environment is not viable you don't have a society. Even if you dismiss the arguement that mankind is making things worse global warming will still affect you personally at some point in the future even if it's just places like las vagas going out of business because there isn't enough water to supply a burgeoning population. How rapidly are deserts growing in the United States if they are. Or will you blame the water companies for not planning ahead enough?

There's little doubt that global climate has changed in the past-try asking your grandparents or older folk what the weather was like when they were young and if they think there is any difference. In the south east of england there are now viable vineyards such as there haven't been since roman times, up here we get a lot less snow than we used to. There is definitely a change.

what is at issue is how much difference mankind's activities have made to the pace and scope of the change and whether we should, could and will do anything about it.

posted by diuretic

I'm not sitting on the fence. I don't believe Bush and his camp for one second because Bush and his crew represent those big corporations that stand to lose money from the realisation that the Earth is basically in trouble, environmentlly speaking. The other mob, in number 2, stand to gain nothing at all, materially at least. Sure, there may be the odd enviro-nutcase in there but on balance it seems to be concern for the Earth rather than the shareholder and profit and loss statement. I'm going with the mob in 2. We're in trouble and I for one intend to support any politician who takes note of it and promises to act rather than one who refuses to believe it's happening.

It's a bit like Pascal's Wager in a way. If I back number 2 I can't lose.

I'm with duiuretic on this one. On a more cynical note why would anyone invest in a company that isn't planning way ahead but living for today. If you want to know which manufacturing corporations will still be aroung in 15-20 yrears time have a look at their research budgets. Sooner or later the more innovative companies will overtake the ones that don't try and compete with but rather try and stop competition from better products. If you could buy a car that did 80 to the gallon and drove as well if not better than you 15mpg suv which would you buy?

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:55 am

Koan wrote: Dr. Gray falls under category 2.

It does not injure me or affect the opinion of the rest of the world if I submit to your decision to believe what you do, Ray. I've thought about it and decided I would be wasting time to argue this with you.

__________________

Yes.. you would be wasting your time arguing with me. That was a wise decision.. It's not because I am particularly intelligent.. because I am not. It's just that I bothered to look into this, and you apparently have not.

So.. Good luck and happiness to you. I wish for you only the best.. and this argument is over.

Raymond

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:01 am

GMC wrote: There is no single fact but rather a body of evidence that put together lead to the concluscion that global warming is happening.

Can't you see just how ridiculous that statement is?? Good lord!!

Of course there is no single fact that global warming exists.. because it doesn't. Global Warming is a political phenomena.. not a scientific one.. just like I have been telling you.

Raymond

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:25 am

Captain Ray wrote: Can't you see just how ridiculous that statement is?? Good lord!!

Of course there is no single fact that global warming exists.. because it doesn't. Global Warming is a political phenomena.. not a scientific one.. just like I have been telling you.

Raymond

O.K. then explain why you consider it a ridiculous statement? Pick out some scientific facts-such as polar ice caps, what is your explantion for the change? Simply saying it's a load of bunkum isn't terribly constructive.

Undopubtedly climate has chnaged a lot in the past why do you think it can't be changing now?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:27 am

Here - this fact is pretty simple to grasp.....

Plants produce oxygen and use carbon monoxide. People produce carbon monoxide and use oxygen. Plants (woodlands and forests) are being decimated at an alarming rate around the world and the population of the world is increasing at an alarming rate.

Throw into the mix the massive amount of polution from cars, and factories that didn't exist 100 years ago.

Call it Global Warming or whatever you like but if you look at that, you should be able to figure out that something has got to give.

And yes, I guess I would be considered a tree hugger.

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:59 am

LilacDragon wrote: Here - this fact is pretty simple to grasp.....

Plants produce oxygen and use carbon monoxide. People produce carbon monoxide and use oxygen. Plants (woodlands and forests) are being decimated at an alarming rate around the world and the population of the world is increasing at an alarming rate.

Throw into the mix the massive amount of polution from cars, and factories that didn't exist 100 years ago.

Call it Global Warming or whatever you like but if you look at that, you should be able to figure out that something has got to give.

And yes, I guess I would be considered a tree hugger.

Geez.. I hate telling people they are wrong all the time.. but you are wrong. There are more trees on the planet than ever before.. you know why? Because liberal won't let us cut them, and we fight forest fires... your premise is flawed.

Raymond

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:02 am

gmc wrote: O.K. then explain why you consider it a ridiculous statement? Pick out some scientific facts-such as polar ice caps, what is your explantion for the change? Simply saying it's a load of bunkum isn't terribly constructive.

Undopubtedly climate has chnaged a lot in the past why do you think it can't be changing now?

It's ridiculous. I don't see why that requires a great deal of explanation. If you are going to try and convince me that there is such a thing as global warming, and your best argument is: "because I said so!"... well.. that is just ridiculous.

Raymond

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:06 am

Captain Ray wrote: Geez.. I hate telling people they are wrong all the time.. but you are wrong. There are more trees on the planet than ever before.. you know why? Because liberal won't let us cut them, and we fight forest fires... your premise is flawed.

Raymond

Step outside of your front door and drive around for about an hour. Then, if you still think that there are more trees on the planet, you might want to contact an opthmalogist. You obviously need to get your eyes checked.

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:15 am

Diuretic wrote: Raymond, now you're just being silly. Of course there are less trees than there once were. Count the cities that occupy the space previously occupied by forests. Come on, you can do better than that.

nope.. you are wrong.

We fight forest fires, which devastated much larger swaths of land than the average logger could ever hope to do... We re-plant clear cuts so that the renewable resource will be forever vibrant... we set aside huge areas for preservation..

Even in big cities.. people plant trees.. there are a lot of freakin' trees on the planet.. more now, than ever before.

Raymond

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:43 pm

Diuretic.. go look around! I know you are in Australia.. I don't know exactly where.. it's none of my business, and it would probably be rude to ask..

People who live in big cities tend to be the ones who are all worried about the environment.. never mind the fact that they have little or no interaction with it.

I look out my front door.. there is my catalpa tree that blooms only once a year.. it is blooming... just to the west is my Giant Sequoia.. next to the water lillys.. Just to the west of that is Robin's (my neighbor) Giant Sequoia, and she also has a catalpa.. but it's not blooming because I think they don't give it enough water... across the street Tracy (she is a complete nut.. I mean CRAZY!! She takes all kinds of medication which she likes to enhance with a lot of alcohol..) she has several fir trees, a walnut, and I think that one in her backyard is a willow... I could go over there and find out.. but then I would have to talk to Tracy.. and I don't like her very much.

Trees!! Every where I go! I can drive for 15 minutes and find myself in dense woods!!

I am not sensing any kind of emergency here...

Raymond

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:54 pm

Well, judging from the lack of green in the city I live in, and the fact that developers are working tirelessly to fill in all the wetlands that we have left to build condo's - I'd say there is a growing problem.

Oh, and the lovely country town I lived in a year ago - I think think of no fewer then 5 new subdivisions going in, replacing woods and pastures with cement. Even if the new homeowners' plant trees in their landscaping it will not come close to replacing the number of trees they cut down to build the houses in the first place.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:00 pm

Captain Ray wrote:

People who live in big cities tend to be the ones who are all worried about the environment.. never mind the fact that they have little or no interaction with it.

I look out my front door.. there is my catalpa tree that blooms only once a year.. it is blooming... just to the west is my Giant Sequoia.. next to the water lillys.. Just to the west of that is Robin's (my neighbor) Giant Sequoia, and she also has a catalpa.. but it's not blooming because I think they don't give it enough water... across the street Tracy (she is a complete nut.. I mean CRAZY!! She takes all kinds of medication which she likes to enhance with a lot of alcohol..) she has several fir trees, a walnut, and I think that one in her backyard is a willow... I could go over there and find out.. but then I would have to talk to Tracy.. and I don't like her very much.

Trees!! Every where I go! I can drive for 15 minutes and find myself in dense woods!!

I am not sensing any kind of emergency here...

Raymond

So your argument is that your part of the world represents the condition of the rest of the world and that your particular area of the world is more valid as a measure than anyone elses?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:31 pm

According to logic here, Diuretic could rightfully claim that all the world is a desert.

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:31 pm

koan wrote: So your argument is that your part of the world represents the condition of the rest of the world and that your particular area of the world is more valid as a measure than anyone elses?

No.. My argument is that there is no shortage of foliage.. the planet is alive and well.. for those of you unfortunate enough to live in Michigan, or New York.. you know little or nothing about the environment.. so keep your nose out of it, or move so you can learn a little bit more..

Raymond

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:33 pm

Diuretic wrote: I live next to a desert Raymond

Mind you, no-one cut the trees down, there just weren't any there in the first place. Got some scrubby bushes and stuff though.

Deserts are an exciting and interesting ecosystem.. The planet could not survive without them.

Raymond