Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Personally, I see no reason to institute draconian measures that would likely kill far more people than the perceived global warming, in my opinion, and further, I don't think there is any compelling evidence that we are causing the problem. Instituting measures to cure cancer may require radiation or chemotherapy that might kill the patient, but if the patient does not have cancer, then the treatment is worse than the ill. If you merely wish to place a bandaid on the patient to cure the cancer to make yourself feel better, I suppose that is harmless, but it really has nothing to do with any potential cancer.

And I see that in your dragging a red herring over all this, we get totally beyond the fact that the BUSH ADMINSTRATION CHANGES THE WORDS ON SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTS, which was, after all, the real point.

btw if you've read the article and the letter to the canadian prime minister , you have no doubt noticed that these scientists have not painted a "doomsday picture" , but are trying to stir the canadian government into action .
hbg

These are serious accusation and if this happens, we need to kwow what or what word is changed. Just like when you said funds for climate science have been cut, we need to know how much.
Please, would you elaborate ?

I suggest that you follow the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's reports on their website ... or just wait until all is declassified.

The Bush administration has faced constant criticism for its overbearing management of information. Some of the latest allegations involve scientists from two federal agencies who claim that they have been muzzled. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), well known for its public relations prowess, embarrassed itself with the ham-handed efforts of a political appointee to deny media access to James Hansen, one of its most prominent scientists. NASA's woes multiplied when it was revealed that the media gatekeeper was a 24-year-old former Bush campaign worker who had "accidentally" claimed earning a college degree when he had not

And I see that in your dragging a red herring over all this, we get totally beyond the fact that the BUSH ADMINSTRATION CHANGES THE WORDS ON SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTS, which was, after all, the real point.

Foxfyre wrote:

. . . . The authors find that government funding of research has corrupted the scientific process as scientists compete for funding in a politically charged envi-ronment. Total federal spending on global climate change research has ballooned from a few million dollars to $2.1 billion annually in the last 15 years. . .

Some love to attack research funded by energy companies, but what about political interests funding research? In such cases, the researchers need certain answers to perpetuate their funding, and many have a political bias to begin with. I think phony science funded by political interests is more dangerous, because political interests have more power to influence policy based on phony science than energy companies do. Energy companies cannot confiscate my money, but government can, and then do with it whatever they please.

And I see that in your dragging a red herring over all this, we get totally beyond the fact that the BUSH ADMINSTRATION CHANGES THE WORDS ON SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTS, which was, after all, the real point.

Please, would you elaborate ?

A new report claims that the Bush administration has suppressed scientists' climate-change work.

By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor


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. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.


Sometimes scientists and career public-affairs officers would send press releases related to global warming up the ladder for review, then never hear back. Or appointees changed the wording in ways that scientists felt distorted the results or their implications, and the researchers weren't given a chance to argue their case. One of the most blatant examples focuses on the issue of hurricanes and global warming. According to the report, in 2005, the White House stepped in to block an interview MSNBC sought with NOAA scientist Thomas Knutson, who a year earlier had published a modeling study on the potential link between hurricanes and global warming. The interview was to focus on new research by other scientists that suggested global warming has contributed to trends toward stronger hurricanes.

Documents GAP obtained showed that instead of approving subsequent interviews with Dr. Knutson, high-level public-affairs officers routed interview requests to NOAA scientist Chris Landsea in Miami, who argued, in part, that the quality of global hurricane data was too poor and inconsistent to draw meaningful conclusions. In another instance, reporters interested in interviewing a NOAA scientist who had coauthored a new research paper concluding that modern warming "is dominated by human influences" were sent instead to then-deputy administrator Jim Mahoney.

In all, 150 scientists reported a combined 435 instances of real or perceived "interference" related to global-warming research within the past five years.

Occasionally Asked Questions
About Roger Pielke, Jr.
Q: Who are you?
I am currently a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. At CU, I am also a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and the director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Before coming to CU in 2001, I spent 8 years as a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in their Environmental and Societal Impacts Group (now called ISSE). I have a B.A. in mathematics, an M.A. in public policy and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado.

miniTAX wrote:

Please, would you elaborate ?

Yes, MiniTax, I'm glad you agree that this is serious. Do you read.... The Christian Science Monitor? Here's another report dated today.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html

Has the White House interfered on global warming reports?

Quote:

A new report claims that the Bush administration has suppressed scientists' climate-change work.

By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor


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. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.


Sometimes scientists and career public-affairs officers would send press releases related to global warming up the ladder for review, then never hear back. Or appointees changed the wording in ways that scientists felt distorted the results or their implications, and the researchers weren't given a chance to argue their case. One of the most blatant examples focuses on the issue of hurricanes and global warming. According to the report, in 2005, the White House stepped in to block an interview MSNBC sought with NOAA scientist Thomas Knutson, who a year earlier had published a modeling study on the potential link between hurricanes and global warming. The interview was to focus on new research by other scientists that suggested global warming has contributed to trends toward stronger hurricanes.

Documents GAP obtained showed that instead of approving subsequent interviews with Dr. Knutson, high-level public-affairs officers routed interview requests to NOAA scientist Chris Landsea in Miami, who argued, in part, that the quality of global hurricane data was too poor and inconsistent to draw meaningful conclusions. In another instance, reporters interested in interviewing a NOAA scientist who had coauthored a new research paper concluding that modern warming "is dominated by human influences" were sent instead to then-deputy administrator Jim Mahoney.

In all, 150 scientists reported a combined 435 instances of real or perceived "interference" related to global-warming research within the past five years.

A couple of pages back back, Foxfyre, Pielke was in your quote, and I already asked you about him.

minitax gave references to his father.

hamburger wrote:

btw if you've read the article and the letter to the canadian prime minister , you have no doubt noticed that these scientists have not painted a "doomsday picture" , but are trying to stir the canadian government into action .
hbg
Maybe hamburger but you can't deny the doomsday picture is not regularly painted by alarmist scientists, not to say activists or the media.

maybe

(i personally simply do not believe that these actions would endanger the lives of people , let alone kill them - but that's just my opinion).
hbg

Do you have any evidence other than somebody reporting the statements from two organizations that have been 100% anti-Bush administration and have not had anything positive to say about any Bush administrative initiative for the past 6+ years and are stacked with political activists and class action attorneys?

June 16, 2005

Aide who doctored global warming report joins Exxon
From Roland Watson in Washington

A WHITE HOUSE aide who softened scientific warnings about global warming in government documents has been hired by Exxon Mobil, the oil company.
Philip Cooney, the former chief of staff to President Bush's Council on Environmental Quality, quit two days after leaked documents disclosed the extent to which he had neutered the conclusions of government scientists.

Personally, I see no reason to institute draconian measures that would likely kill far more people than the perceived global warming, in my opinion, and further, I don't think there is any compelling evidence that we are causing the problem.