Quote: The forecasters are not allowed to talk about the most important part of their story, which is why the weather might be happening.
That has nothing at all to do with FOREcast but with BACKground information.
This is what I wrote about it, and I believe it is accurate.
georgeob1 wrote:
The columnist was advocating that weather forecasts become less "technical" and include more propaganda about climactic trends and why they are occurring.
Unfortunately that information is not known by science - only the true believing cultists have access to that kind of certainty.
canada geese have been flying north for about a week now - that's about six weeks earlier than usual .
perhaps i should be glad that they are leaving early ... don't have to look where i am stepping along the shoreline
... i'm afraid they'll make up for it when they are coming back !
many of the canada geese don't bother going south for the winter anymore ; they stay right on the fields adjacent to lake ontario during the winter - bugger !
hbg
Not only that - there are now many more of them than a couple of decades ago.
The same all year phenominon can be observed in the UC, on the east coast and east opf the Rockies.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Quote: The forecasters are not allowed to talk about the most important part of their story, which is why the weather might be happening.
That has nothing at all to do with FOREcast but with BACKground information.
nice one walter, good to see some Germanic logic inserted into the use of English.
So nice to see you, Steve. From your office window you look at land that not so long ago >
http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Image:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png
> was part of the European mainland. From mine I look at Central Park, about the same time covered by over a mile of ice. In fact, Manhattan wasn't an island at all - nor was Long Island, any more than England or Ireland.
This nonsense about CO2 being "pollution" (it's a harmless gas!) trumpeted by The Guardian in its listing of polluters. Said listing should be rather drastically revised to expose the true polluters - China (mercury and other heavy metals), India (sewage overwhelming the Bay of Bengal plus particulate pollution along the length of the Ganges) and Africa.
High Seas wrote:This nonsense about CO2 being "pollution" (it's a harmless gas!) trumpeted by The Guardian in its listing of polluters.
You should tell that your administration!!!
Quote:Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research
March 27, 2007 12:13 PM
Justin Rood Reports:
Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.
Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.
The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.
The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.
"The evidence suggests that incidents of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications for the administration," the group says in its report.
Some of the alleged interference -- including restricting scientists' ability to talk with the press and Congress -- may have violated federal laws protecting their right to speak, the group concludes.
"Directives and signals" from White House offices, like the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, are handed down to political appointees and politically-aligned civil servants through off-the-record conversations, the report says. Frequently, those giving the direction have little or no scientific background, according to the report.
The alleged interference took the form of "delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying interviews" between government scientists and media outlets, as well as delaying, denying or "inappropriate[ly] editing" press releases conveying scientific findings to the public.
Political appointees also suppressed, delayed and inappropriately edited reports produced by government scientists for Congress and the public, the Washington, D.C.-based group concluded.
In some cases, the policies and practices the group says were enacted to squelch damaging scientific information "constitute constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate science employees' free speech and whistle-blower rights," the report finds.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Tarek Maassarani, the report's author, cautioned that he did not see evidence of a single coordinated White House effort to block credible climate research. Instead, he believed officials acted only when a piece of research or particular issue showed up on their political radar. "They're reacting to situations most of the time," Maassarani told ABC News.
The investigation covered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and elsewhere.
Evidence and allegations of political interference in government climate change research have dogged the Bush administration, even from fellow Republicans. Last November, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., charged the administration had broken the law by failing to deliver news of climate change research to Congress by a legally-mandated deadline of November 2004.
"When you get to that degree of obfuscation, then you get a little depressed," McCain said then.
House Science Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., said the report's findings were "alarming" but "confirm what we knew all along" and looked forward to learning more at tomorrow's hearing.
What is the defense for this, this editing of scientific reports?
Cycloptichorn
Walter,
I wouldn't compare the U.S. Administration's grudging adoption of some of the vocabulary of the contemporary AGW cult to the enthusiastic embrace of it offered by most European countries. Everyone agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as the term is defined. We simply disagree on the speculations, disguised as scientific forecasts, about its likely effects.
We rejected the Kyoto Treaty (and still do): your country signed it and then failed to meet its commitments to it. I have the impression that, in Western Europe, about the only political issue all the contending parties can agree on is AGW. Given the relative inaction to these expressions of belief, one can only regard this as a very interesting psychological phenomenon.
I was replying to Helen, who wrote about this harmless gas which was trumpeted out by the Guardian as a pollution.
georgeob1 wrote:Walter,
I wouldn't compare the U.S. Administration's grudging adoption of some of the vocabulary of the contemporary AGW cult to the enthusiastic embrace of it offered by most European countries. Everyone agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as the term is defined. We simply disagree on the speculations, disguised as scientific forecasts, about its likely effects.
We rejected the Kyoto Treaty (and still do): your country signed it and then failed to meet its commitments to it. I have the impression that, in Western Europe, about the only political issue all the contending parties can agree on is AGW. Given the relative inaction to these expressions of belief, one can only regard this as a very interesting psychological phenomenon.
The rejection of Kyoto treaty by our administration does not invalidate GW. As for not signing it, if you are from the San Fransisco bay area, your city DOES uphold Kyoto.
Kyoto cities in USA.
Diest TKO wrote:
The rejection of Kyoto treaty by our administration does not invalidate GW. As for not signing it, if you are from the San Fransisco bay area, your city DOES uphold Kyoto.
San Francisco is a wonderful place - beautiful, lots of variety in everything, and very tolerant. All of which features I like very much. Not long ago a member of the City Council endorsed a "official declaration" naming a day in honor of some variety of gay porn. I found that amusing, just as I find the city's pretenses of a foreign policy and other meaningless activities on the part of its municipal government.
It is true that the US rejection of the Kyoto treaty does not itself imply that the theory behind it is wrong. Similarly, the fact that many governments have signed it doesn't demonstrate that the theory is correct either. Indeed the fact that so many of them have done so little to fulfill the promiises they so solemnly made - and keep repeating - is a fairly reliable indicator that something is wrong among them.
Walter Hinteler wrote:High Seas wrote:This nonsense about CO2 being "pollution" (it's a harmless gas!) trumpeted by The Guardian in its listing of polluters.
You should tell that your administration!!!
Perhaps a more careful reading will disclose that "emissions" and "pollutants" are not identical
So Green House Gas emissions are harmless in your opinion.
caution - greenhouse gases start with water vapor.
.........and certainly I stand by my statement that CO2 is a harmless gas; perhaps The Guardian confused it with CO, which is not?!
Why the Right Goes Nuclear Over Global Warming
Why the Right Goes Nuclear Over Global Warming
By Jonathan Chait
The Los Angeles Times
Sunday 25 March 2007
Most of the heat is generated by a small number of hard-core ideologues.
Last year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the respondents, 23% said yes, 77% said no. In the year since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90%.
So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.
How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.
But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated - and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.
Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.
Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.
Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.
The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!
An appeal for nuclear power plants! I'm all in favor - we only have 400 of them worldwide, we could build another 4,000 easily <G>
Who is Monica Goodling?
U. S. ATTORNEYS
Who is Monica Goodling?
By Ron Hutcheson
McClatchy Newspapers
3/27/07
WASHINGTON - Monica Goodling, the Department of Justice official who said Monday that she'll invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than talk to lawmakers, is a frequent figure in department e-mails released so far as part of the congressional investigation into the firings and hirings of U.S. attorneys.
Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an evangelical spirit."
She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."
E-mails show that Goodling was involved in planning the dismissals and in later efforts to limit the negative reaction. As the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, she could shed light on the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals.
Goodling took a leading role in making sure that Tim Griffin, a protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, replaced H.E. "Bud" Cummins as the U.S. attorney in Arkansas. Documents released to Congress include communications between Goodling and Scott Jennings, Rove's deputy.
In an Aug. 18, 2006, e-mail to Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales' chief of staff, Goodling warned of potential political problems with Griffin's appointment and underscored White House interest in getting it done.
"We have a senator prob, so while wh is intent on nominating, scott thinks we may have a confirmation issue," Goodling wrote.
At Jennings' request, documents show, Goodling agreed to meet last summer with two Republican activists from New Mexico who felt that U.S. Attorney David Iglesias wasn't doing enough to pursue allegations of voter fraud by Democrats. Iglesias believes the issue was a key factor in his firing.
In a June 20 e-mail, Jennings asked Goodling to arrange a Justice Department meeting for New Mexico Republican Mickey Barnett, who came to Washington with Paul Rogers, another GOP activist.
"It is sensitive - perhaps you should do it," Jennings suggested.
"Happy to do so," Goodling replied. A copy of her daily planner, which was provided to congressional investigators, shows that she met with the two the next day.
Goodling also appears to have been influential in preventing the ouster of U.S. Attorney Gretchen Shappert in western North Carolina. When Shappert's name appeared on a list of targeted prosecutors in September 2006, Goodling recommended that she be left alone.
"There are plenty of others there to start with," Goodling wrote, "and I don't think she merits being included in that group at this time."
Shappert kept her job.
Walter Hinteler wrote:So Green House Emissions are harmless in your opinion.
The question needs some context Walter. Greenhouse gas emissions from the digestive processes of animals (even dinosaurs), the decay of plant and animal life, and the vaporization of water have been going on throughout geologic time. In what sense can we call their effects "harmful"? We know that the earth had a beginning, and that it will not last forever. It has never been in a state of equilibruium.
I believe the relevant question is whether the, relatively very small, addition to greenhouse gas emissions (or CO2 sequestration) induced by human activity can have a sudden (in geological terms) catasthrophic effect on the human environment. Associated with that is the question of whether there exists a remedy that itself is any better than the 'problem'.
On both of these points there is much room for debate, and much reason to doubt the exaggerations and illusions offered by the AGW cultists.
