Bush officials misled public on global warming - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***PressCoverage*** · 01-30-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Harry beat me to it. Stole the words -- or some of them, anyway -- right off my keyboard:

It's all George W. Bush's fault. W has been PLANNING for how to make global warming ever since he invented the internet .... I mean, ever since he quit drinking 20-some years ago. It's Bush's fault. He said, and I quote:

"Texas isn't hot enough. We still have armadillos who can walk around my ranch with unpunity in the middle of the hot time of year... during...uh, that would be summer. I want them armor-plated rats fried to a crisp so my dogs don't have to chase them off our front lawn, or what's left of it after Cindy Sheehan's been camped out on it forever. Turn up the heat, already, ya hear!!"

//

funny...

aren't you the guy who's final ploy is to routinely plead for unity and bi-partisan efforts towards solving a problem? why is it, then, that you consistently ramp up or make excuses for conservative talking points that no one else is buying?... you're the most unapologetic righty on the board, and yet you want to paint a picture of the other side as vindictive and nasty?

this is about staving off a global catastrophie... what you're arguing for benefits nothing but the status quo of gluttonous consumption and corporate profit... at what point, christian, do you show a semblance of concern for your environment?

Fogbuster · 01-30-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

funny...

aren't you the guy who's final ploy is to routinely plead for unity and bi-partisan efforts towards solving a problem? why is it, then, that you consistently ramp up or make excuses for conservative talking points that no one else is buying?... you're the most unapologetic righty on the board, and yet you want to paint a picture of the other side as vindictive and nasty?

this is about staving off a global catastrophie... what you're arguing for benefits nothing but the status quo of gluttonous consumption and corporate profit... at what point, christian, do you show a semblance of concern for your environment?

Can you overstate your case any more, Press??? Get you skivvies out of a wad, will you!! I have never seen anyone in fifteen years of internet lists who plays the "put down card" the way you do!! Is this what they teach now in jorno School, or are you just an arrogant your-way-or-the highway twat naturally??

Dude, when the elitist Lefty BLOW-HARDS, like John Kerry, ALgore, John Edwards and the Hollywood set, to name only the beginning of the LONG-G-G-G list of them,... anyway, when THEY all turn in THEIR SUVs, THEIR PRIVATE jets, THEIR global jet-setting, to go for lunch in Paris, skiing in the afternoon, and haircuts in California, then maybe -- MAYBE -- they (you, too) will begin to get some credibility. Until then, they are fooling NO ONE. No one has time for frauds who say one thing and do another. Walk the walk, bro. Talk is too cheap.

//

Real World · 01-30-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

[SIZE="6]
Global Warming

Attention:-----Stop Breaking Wind

Praise Jesus H Christ[/SIZE]

***PressCoverage*** · 01-30-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Can you overstate your case any more, Press??? Get you skivvies out of a wad, will you!! I have never seen anyone in fifteen years of internet lists who plays the "put down card" the way you do!! Is this what they teach now in jorno School, or are you just an arrogant your-way-or-the highway twat naturally??

Dude, when the elitist Lefty BLOW-HARDS, like John Kerry, ALgore, John Edwards and the Hollywood set, to name only the beginning of the LONG-G-G-G list of them,... anyway, when THEY all turn in THEIR SUVs, THEIR PRIVATE jets, THEIR global jet-setting, to go for lunch in Paris, skiing in the afternoon, and haircuts in California, then maybe -- MAYBE -- they (you, too) will begin to get some credibility. Until then, they are fooling NO ONE. No one has time for frauds who say one thing and do another. Walk the walk, bro. Talk is too cheap.

//

i will avoid calling you names, unlike you have once again...

regardless, thank you for ignoring my direct post, and painting another picture altogether... you're excellent at that... where did i put you down? and when do you address the direct challenge that you, IN FACT, ARE always calling for bipartisan unity, yet always in the next breath underscoring the same old CONservative talking points?

i'm trying to understand your argument... is it that until celebs and environmentally conscious liberals start driving Fords, you'll never listen to facts about climate change?... is that what you're honestly holding out for? seriously, tell us what study of fact will ever change your mind?.... or are you just waiting for God?

anyhow, here we are:

Bush Administration Has Pressured Half Of Gov’t Scientists To Downplay Global Warming

A new report presented to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project shows 435 instances in which the Bush administration interfered into the global warming work of government scientists over the past five years. Some other findings of the survey:

– 46 percent of government scientists “personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications.”

– 46 percent “perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.”

– 38 percent “perceived or personally experienced the disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate.”

– 25 percent “perceived or personally experienced situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

James Hansen, the government’s top global warming researcher, has also revealed that the Bush administration tried to prevent him from speaking freely about global warming to the media. In 2004, the administration also had a requirement that “NASA press officers listened in whenever NASA scientists spoke with reporters, either on the telephone or in person.”

***PressCoverage*** · 01-30-2007, 07:05 PM

Rep. Cooper: White House Barred Negroponte From Saying ‘Global’ And ‘Warming’ In Same Sentence »

During today’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the political manipulation of climate change science, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) revealed the Bush administration has barred Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte from saying the phrase “global warming.”

Cooper said he recently attended a dinner party at which Negroponte was speaking, and “word slipped through the crowd he was not allowed to utter the words ‘global warming,’ at least not in the same sentence. Apparently, he was allowed to say the word ‘global’ in a separate sentence, and ‘warming’ in a separate sentence, but not together.” Watch it:

wow... Gen. Sutler? Any other directives? Seig Heil!!

wistahpatsfan · 01-30-2007, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

Rep. Cooper: White House Barred Negroponte From Saying ‘Global’ And ‘Warming’ In Same Sentence »

The acceptable phrase for the government this week is "Global climate change".

***patsfan13*** · 01-30-2007, 09:19 PM

Oh well time to try to educate the scientific illeterate and leftist about the fallacy of man made Global warming. Before we start a few facts. In past ages the earth has been far warmer that it currently is, there is no evidence it damaged the Global eco system. The climate is not static it is continually changing, this has been true in the past and will be true in the future, whether there are domesticated primates on the planet or not.

Lotsa links and text be forewarned.

From Dialy Tech, Sun responsible for GW?
http://www.dailytech.com/Bad+News+fo...rticle5914.htm

Quote:

It's been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists. Researchers are finding more and more evidence of natural warming events in the earth's past, events that were far more rapid and dramatic than first thought. Several scientists, disgusted with the media's refusal to carry their mesage accurately, have begun writing letters and books. Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise. Evidence of the beneficial aspects of continues to mount, with arctic seal populations increasing, longer growing seasons, and less extreme temperature swings.

Luckily, its not yet illegal to research the true causes of global warming. Late last year, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer released his book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years), detailing the current warming trend's correspondence with a natural 1500-year cycle. Singer notes that most of the current warming ocurred before 1940, and thus before the majority of man's CO2 emissions. He further notes that, since 1940, the earth experienced one 30-year long cooling trend, followed by a 30-year warming trend...both of which were much smaller than the warming right after 1900. Singer's documenting of 600 past historical events of rapid warming further supports his views.

Quote:

Also, Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark has a book coming out next month: The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. In it, he details his research on cosmic radiation-induced atmospheric cloud formation. Svensmark points out that already-observed changes in solar flux act to reduce cloud cover, and thus cause the earth to reflect less solar radiation back into space. This quite obviously causes a moderate degree of warming...just as we've seen.

More on the sun and changes it the earths climate:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...mg19325884.500

Quote:

There's a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. So says a physicist who has created a computer model of our star's core.

Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, modelled the effect of temperature fluctuations in the sun's interior. According to the standard view, the temperature of the sun's core is held constant by the opposing pressures of gravity and nuclear fusion. However, Ehrlich believed that slight variations should be possible.

He took as his starting point the work of Attila Grandpierre of the Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In 2005, Grandpierre and a collaborator, Gábor Ágoston, calculated that magnetic fields in the sun's core could produce small instabilities in the solar plasma. These instabilities would induce localised oscillations in temperature.

Ehrlich's model shows that whilst most of these oscillations cancel each other out, some reinforce one another and become long-lived temperature variations. The favoured frequencies allow the sun's core temperature to oscillate around its average temperature of 13.6 million kelvin in cycles lasting either 100,000 or 41,000 years. Ehrlich says that random interactions within the sun's magnetic field could flip the fluctuations from one cycle length to the other.

These two timescales are instantly recognisable to anyone familiar with Earth's ice ages: for the past million years, ice ages have occurred roughly every 100,000 years. Before that, they occurred roughly every 41,000 years.

Now what is happening in the rest of the Solar system, wonder what the SUV's are doing to the climates on Mars, Pluto and Jupiter:

http://www.nationalsummary.com/Artic...mings_mars.htm

Quote:

NASA scientists are reporting that the climate on Mars appears to presently be warmer than it has been for at least several decades, possibly even centuries. This is based on pictures of Mars dating back to 1999. These images document substantial changes in the polar ice caps that Michael Malin, the principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera describes as shrinking at “a prodigious rate”.

....
Then in 2006, it was revealed that Jupiter, too, may be undergoing a global warming trend. Photography from the Hubble Space Telescope indicates that a major storm, similar to the “Great Red Spot”, a storm that has been underway for at least 300 years, is gaining altitude indicating an increase in heat in that area. Scientists now believe that Jupiter is in the midst of some type of global event which is modifying temperatures by as much as ten degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the planet.

Ten degrees may not seem like much, particularly on a planet where the average temperature is around 250 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. However, imagine if certain parts of our planet warmed up by an average of ten degrees – that would certainly make climatologists sit up and take notice. And it would certainly have an effect on our planet!

....
It appears that Pluto, too, is experiencing a warming trend. Pluto is a strange bird. In fact, the scientific community in August 2006 stripped it of its “planetary” status; it is now known as a “dwarf planet”. Still, photographic evidence from 2002-2003 suggests that it is “significantly” warmer than it was in 1988, with atmospheric pressure twice what it was when last observed; this despite the fact that in 1989 it reached it’s closest approach to the sun and for the last 16 years it has been moving further away. Of course, “significantly” is a relative term when discussing a planet where the atmospheric temperature ranges from -274 degrees F to -391 degrees F, depending on the altitude.

This from Russian scientist on more atmospheric CO2 being a result of Global warming not a cause.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...1-a59b71743bec

Quote:

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers 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."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

***patsfan13*** · 01-30-2007, 09:22 PM

Part 2

BTW is the size of the Glaciers on Antartica really shrinking?

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

Quote:

Reference
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635.

What was done
The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet.""

What was learned
Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.

What if Algore's wildest fantasies are realized and all the ice caps were to melt (we'll ignore the avg temps in Antarctica and the Arctic which virtually preclude the ice caps melting Hint look up the avg temp in Antarctica and figure out how the planet warms up enough to get that figure above 0C?

BTW the followingis from a non commercial site.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/envi...aterworld.html

Quote:

While today's balance between the icecaps and global sea level has been relatively steady since about 1000 B.C., it would be careless to assume that this is the Earth's natural state and that it should always be this way. What could happen to climate naturally in the next few thousand years? If the Earth continued to warm and break from ice age conditions, some of the remaining ice caps could melt. On the other hand, climate might swing back into another ice age. (In fact, some of the environmentalists now worried about global warming were worried about another ice age in the 1960s and 1970s.)

In either case, such a change in climate would take thousands of years to accomplish. Note that it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. The remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years, through wide ranges in global climate. embers tThe IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years." [31]

......

How much concern should we have about the 20% of world ice outside the East Antarctic Ice Sheet? Some sources have recently discussed the "possible collapse" of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). It is suggested that this sheet (about 10% of Antarctic ice) could melt in the "near term" (a usefully vague phrase) and raise sea level 5 to 6 meters. Current understanding is that the WAIS has been melting for the last 10,000 years, and that its current behavior is a function of past, not current climate. [23] The abstract of an article by Alley and Whillans addresses this:

...

Similarly, recent stories have periodically appeared concerning the potential receding of the Greenland ice cap. Two points may be made regarding current understanding here. First, there is considerable disagreement as to the current rate of net ice cap loss--or even if there is net loss versus net gain. Second, even with temperature increases far greater than the dubious predictions of the IPCC, models indicate that Greenland's ice cap would take 2,000 to 10,000 years to disappear.

Some discussion of the concerns about near term sea level rise may be found in Facts and figures on sea level rise. The predictions that have been made for ice cap melting in the next century rely mostly on melting of glaciers in mountain regions, not melting of the polar ice caps. Even the pessimistic models cited by the IPCC tend to predict an increase in the volume of the Antarctic ice cap with warmer temperatures due to increased snowfalls. In general temperature changes of a few degrees do not seem to be sufficient to begin to melt the polar ice caps, particularly the Antarctic ice cap.

III. Imagining the world without ice caps

As long as we understand that the polar ice caps are not going to melt in the foreseeable future, we can proceed to imagine what the world would be like if they did melt.

Using the ice volume figures from above it is straightforward to estimate the effect on sea level were all this ice melted. Melting the 29,300,000 km3 of grounded ice would produce 26,100,000 km3 of water. Note that melting of floating ice has no effect on sea level. Also, about 2,100,000 km3 of the grounded ice in Antarctica is below sea level [19] and would be replaced by water. Thus, the net addition to the world's oceans would be about 24,000,000 km3 of water spread over the 361,000,000 km2 area of the world's oceans, giving a depth of 67 meters. The new ocean area would be slightly larger, of course, since some areas now land would be covered with water. The final result would be around 66 meters (current estimates range between 63 and 75 meters).

Today the Earth has 148 million sq. km of land area, of which 16 million sq. km is covered by glaciers. A sea level rise of 66 meters would flood about 13 million sq. km of land outside Antarctica. Without polar ice, Antarctica and Greenland would be ice free, although about half of Antarctica would be under water. Thus, ice-free land would be 128 million sq. km compared to 132 million sq. km today.

As a result, in terms of total habitable land area, the Earth might have more than today. The coastal areas reclaimed by the sea would be mostly offset by now habitable areas of Greenland and Antarctica. Again, remember that such climate change would take thousands of years. Over such time scales vegetation would be restored to newly ice-free regions even without human activity. Also, vast areas which are now desert and tundra would become more fit for human habitation and agriculture.

The illustrations above do not depict any changes in vegetation. In reality, local climates would be very different in ways that are currently difficult to predict. It might be that the warmer climate would lead to generally greater precipitation (this is suggested by comparison to the last ice age, when cooler temperatures caused expansion of the Sahara). Unfortunately, current models are not reliable enough to give a confident answer.

So why wouldn't people drown? Again, a change in the Earth this dramatic would take thousands of years to effect from any realistic cause. Over generations people would migrate as the coasts changed. Consider that virtually all of the settlements in the United States were established only in last 350 years. Of course, many settlements inhabited for thousands of years would have to be abandoned to the ocean--just as many would have to be abandoned if ice age conditions returned and covered vast areas with ice sheets. But people can comfortably adjust where they live over periods of decades, far shorter than the thousands of years needed for these climate changes to naturally take place. Also, that's if they occur, and we have no evidence to indicate what would happen to climate over the next few thousand years.

IV. A final comment

For those curious as to what the Earth would be like with the ice caps melted, this report has hopefully given an illustration, along with some perspective: this sort of change cannot be affected by modern human activity even given many centuries. It is sad that some youngsters think that burning of hydrocarbons could cause the ice caps to melt and drown cities; it is criminal when teachers don't correct this nonsense. And it should tell you much of environmental groups like the Sierra Club when they use such myths to further an extremist political agenda.

One thing I've wondered about, Do you think Waxman or Algore have taken a class in Statistical mechanics? Physical Chemistry? Partial differential Equations? Freshman Physics?

My guess is no, but they are experts in generating hot air.

***PressCoverage*** · 01-30-2007, 09:49 PM

and you're a genius who's smarter than them all, yet you're pontificating your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority on PatsFans.com.... especially the "verified" pablum from Chris Hitchens and Slate.com... .lol

just like your argument there, you've cherry picked essays you want to believe, and have ignored the other 99% who directly contradict that convenient assertion of yours... hooray!!

again, it's more distortion from the "we know everything" portion of the right that essentially says this:

"let's all ignore climate change data, and continue being fat, gluttonous consumers, protecting coroporate environment-raping profit in the process... to hell with our kids, or our grandkids... we'll all be dead by then anyway....

it's interesting they want us all shivering in fear of the terrorist boogey man using hard-to-fathom reasoning, but at the same time, dismiss us all as "alarmists" over climate change, for which there's MUCH more concrete evidence to be worried about...

***patsfan13*** · 01-30-2007, 09:57 PM

So which observation do you dispute? How are the domesticated primates affecting the climate on Mars, Jupiter and Saturn? Please enlighten us.

If you can explain why warming on Earth is different than warming throughout the rest of the Solar System then by all means have at it.

BTW where do you get your 99% figure? I have seen no scientifc polls on whatt scientist beliee or don't believe. I also haven't seen an explainations on whay the Sun is causing the warming observed throughout the Solar system but not the warming observed on Earth?

Bluster aren't facts (well maybe to you they are).