If someone would simply say "The weather sure is goofy", I'd be happy to agree with you.
That's right: it is.
But actually I've thaught, we were talking here about the climate (change) and not the weather.
(There's a special thread about the weather, called
WEATHER OR NOT.
The weather sure is goofy!
c.i., I gotta go buy a lottery ticket.
okie wrote:Steve fails to see the obvious.
Please enlighten me of the obvious, as you percieve it.
georgeob1 wrote:squinney wrote:How do you know it's a normal cycle? How do you know there isn't a human contribution to this cycle?
And, again, what is the benefit to you and others that deny global warming?
The fact is the climate of the globe has never been stable on a geologic time scale. The physical record of the planet is quite clear in the repeated cycles of ice ages, shifts in magnetic polarity, continental drift, and repeated mass extinctions of living creatures. In a shorter time scale, there are known cycles in global temperatures, involving periods of centuries - and they preceeded our industrial development. There is a known 10 - 14 year cycle in solar activity which is detectable in tree rings. Finally there are regional cycles due to shifts in ocean currents such as El Ninho, and these too predate the industrial age.
I don't think that anyone here is arguing against the proposition that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to human activity, does indeed contribute to warming. What is less clear is whether in the short or long run this phenomenon will dominate other natural cycles. Even less reliable, from a scientific perspective, are the long range predictions of accelerating warming and the approach of a tipping point of instability.
The numerical extrapolations and integrations used to forecast future weather, based on curent data, are good for at most a few weeks, even with the best available computing power, due to the strong non-linearity of the equations involved and the sensitive dependence on initial conditions they exhibit. Why, in these circumstances, should we blindly accept far less accurate extrapolations, made with far less rigor in representing the basic processes involved, and requiring far greater time scales for their accuracy ? I am amazed that people blandly accept that these predictions are somehow meaningful given all that has been learned about complex, non-linear dynamic systems, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, chaos , and the self-regulating character of these dynamic systems themselves.
However the big argument here is whether the problem is worth fixing at all - will the cost of fixing it exceed the benefits of doing so? A related question is, would a system of rules and regulations limiting emissions to the degree necessary to contain the phenomenon - if such a thing can be achieved - really be the best way to address it? There is the very real risk, that the economic devastation that would accompany the limits able to accomplish this, would inhibit the development and deployment of the new technologies and power systems needed to both support the current population of the earth and reduce greenhous gas emissions enough to make a difference.
===============================================
One reason the internet is addictive is that among the -- almost -- overwhelming swill posted by so very many one can STILL find PEARLS like the one above by somebody who knows his subject AND can express it in wording understandable by the layman.
One keeps hoping but at some point the ratio of swill to pearls becomes overwhelming to THIS particular biologist a.k.a. yours truly. Good-bye and wishing you all to fare well
Don't leave Louise. You've brought badly needed insights and perspective that have been in short supply on this thread. Stick around. The few, like the one you appropriately admire, need the reinforcements.
I definitely agree that george needs reinforcements.
Keep reinforcing him, blatham.
And, likely, support hose.
Were you publicly educated? It shows.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:okie wrote:Steve fails to see the obvious.
Please enlighten me of the obvious, as you percieve it.
Nature is cyclical. Simple as that. If you want more detail, read the posts of Georgeob1 and Foxfyre, including the link, in the last 2 or 3 pages.
I own property on Lake Michigan. Every twenty years or so, my beachfront dune property disappears. It's been doing that for milleniums.
The sky is falling!
Thank god I haven't forgot or discounted what my parents and grandparents taught me, as is apparent with all these other doomsdayers.
cjhsa wrote:I own property on Lake Michigan. Every twenty years or so, my beachfront dune property disappears. It's been doing that for milleniums.
The sky is falling!
Thank god I haven't forgot or discounted what my parents and grandparents taught me, as is apparent with all these other doomsdayers.
How old are you cjhsa to know about this 20 year cycle let alone the milleniums?
okie wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:okie wrote:Steve fails to see the obvious.
Please enlighten me of the obvious, as you percieve it.
Nature is cyclical. Simple as that. If you want more detail, read the posts of Georgeob1 and Foxfyre, including the link, in the last 2 or 3 pages.
You are clear that Bush's own science council's research shows that global warming is real and that human activity is a causal factor? Aside from george's previous argument, I just wanted to make sure you had this understood.
Would you believe that many of the left wing wackos hired under previous administrations, or even during this administration, are salaried employees who do not serve at the pleasure of the president and who are still there?
Something like the huge nonbid contracts given to Haliburton, heh? They've almost taken over our military.
Foxfyre wrote:Would you believe that many of the left wing wackos hired under previous administrations, or even during this administration, are salaried employees who do not serve at the pleasure of the president and who are still there?
Into the corner with dunce cap for you.
As if
this administration kept anyone around with philosophical ties to the previous administration. As if.
The folks invoved aren't secretaries and copy boys and Tom DeLay staffers hired on as a favor returned. It's a council of scientists.
And, then the Bush people (
not scientists) go ahead and decide they don't like some sentences, and change the report's findings before publication. We're sure talkin' scientific integrity here.
Quote:At issue is next week's huge government report on the state of the environment. Under heavy editing pressure from the White House, a lengthy chapter on climate change has been gutted.
In a draft of the report - obtained by CBS News - strong language that "climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was stricken by the White House; as was government research that suggests recent climate change is "likely mostly due to human activities."
An edited version said that climate change "may have potentially profound consequences" but, "The complexity of the earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, document its cause and develop useful projections on how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future."
The revised draft removed a reference to a 1999 study showing global temperatures had risen sharply in the past decade compared to the previous 1,000 years. But it did cite another study, partly paid for by the oil industry, challenging the uniqueness of recent temperature increases.
And it deleted a National Research Council finding that various studies have suggested that recent warming was unusual and likely due to human activities. The 2001 NRC report had been commissioned by the White House and cited in the past by President Bush...
The changes were protested by EPA staffers, who wrote in a confidential memo that the report "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."
But outgoing EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman, who was comfortable with the original language, gave in, fearing the White House might kill the entire report.
"I didn't want to lose this report over language on climate change. It wasn't worth it," Whitman said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/24/politics/main564873.shtml
And, there's this...
Quote:Chair of International Science Panel
In early 2002, the State Department successfully opposed the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to the top position on the preeminent international global warming study panel.[2]
Dr. Robert Watson had been chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. An internationally respected scientist and recipient of numerous awards and honors, Dr. Watson had been the Director of the Science Division at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and chief scientist at the World Bank. Under his leadership, the IPCC had produced a report predicting an increase of 2.5 to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit in average global temperatures by 2100[3] and concluding that "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[4] These conclusions were affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.[5]
After the release of the 2001 report, ExxonMobil lobbied the Bush administration for Dr. Watson's ouster. A February 6, 2001 memo sent by ExxonMobil to John Howard of the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House criticized Dr. Watson and asked, "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?"[6] ExxonMobil opposes the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming and gives over a million dollars a year to groups that question the existence of global warming.[7]
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_global_warming.htm
Only Blatham would post a piece from democrats.reform.house.gov as a credible source on Bush policies. But then he has said that Salon is a non-partisan objective news source, so I guess that's to be expected.
blatham, Right-wingers can only find media articles that denigrate the 'other' party, but none about the republicans. Surprising? I think not.
There was a segment on Nightline last night about how this administration uses media for tax paid propaganda in the US and Iraq. What their investigation found was so-called reports that looks like actual news story, but were found that the "newsman" or "newswoman" can't be found in any of the major media staffing list; they are 'actors' portrayed as newscasters.
Here's an older article about how Bush uses tax paid propaganda - that is against the law. But we wouldn't know it by the silence of congress.
Bush Shows No Remorse for Fake Newscasts
by William Fisher
NEW YORK -- Despite a rising chorus of condemnation from journalists and media critics, the George W. Bush administration shows no signs of abandoning its distribution of taxpayer-funded "news" to U.S. newspapers, radio and television stations.
Free press advocates are up in arms about what they say is the covert dissemination of propaganda by government agencies.
The 'video news releases' put out by the U.S. government are pernicious because the TV broadcasts often do not tell the viewers that the government is funding and controlling those supposed 'news' reports.
Norman Solomon
In one case, the administration -- seeking to build support among black families for its education reform plans -- paid a prominent African American pundit, Armstrong Williams, 240,000 dollars to promote the "No Child Left Behind" law on his nationally syndicated television show and through his newspaper column, and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
Two other nationally known journalists, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus, have also admitted accepting thousands of dollars to endorse government programs.
Since 2001, the Army and Air Force Hometown News Service has fielded 40 reporters, producers and public affairs specialists to create "good military news" to be beamed to home audiences via local news stations. The service's "good news" segments have reportedly reached 41 million Americans via local newscasts -- in most cases, without the station acknowledging their source.
More than 20 different federal agencies used taxpayer funds to produce television news segments promoting Bush administration policies. These "video news releases," or VNRs, were broadcast on hundreds of local news programs. without disclosing their source.
And the military's TV outlet the Pentagon Channel, which formerly targeted the armed forces, is now available to U.S. citizens via every satellite and cable operator.
Regarding the VNRs, Pres. Bush said the government's practice of sending "packaged news stories" to local television stations was legal and he has no plans to cease it.
His defense of the packages, which are designed to look like television news segments, came after the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog agency, called them a form of covert propaganda.
The administration responded that, "Executive Branch agencies are not bound by GAO's legal advice" but should be guided by the views of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, part of the executive branch.
GAO said that publications that are "misleading as to their origin and reasonably constitute 'propaganda' within the common understanding of that term." Its definition of propaganda includes "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties."
Last week, two influential media advocacy groups, Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy, filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging Chairman Kevin J. Martin to investigate broadcasters who distribute government-sponsored news reports without identifying their source.
Nearly 40,000 concerned citizens have already signed a petition circulated by the two groups last week calling on the FCC, Congress and local broadcasters to "stop fake news", the groups reported.
Free Press is a nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in media policy and promote more public interest-oriented media. The Center for Media and Democracy publishes "PR Watch", a newsletter that investigates the public relations industry and other professional propagandists.
According to Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, the petition calls on the FCC to "take quick action to investigate and eradicate news fraud and enforce the existing laws against payola. Congress must enact new laws that will stop government-funded fake news from airing without a disclaimer."
Other media critics were equally vocal.
"The administration practice of clandestine support for commentators and video press releases reinforces the nagging suspicion that much of what passes for news nowadays is actually bought and paid for in order to advance a particular agenda," Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told IPS.
"Paying journalists to write positive stories is part of a pattern of secrecy and manipulating the public that undermines our safety and our democracy."
Rick Blum of OpenTheGovernment.org, another pro-transparency advocacy group, charged that "The public expects journalists are credible and independent, free of government money and conflicts of interest."
He told IPS, "Government actions should stand the scrutiny of an enterprising, independent press. Using tax dollars to literally write the news about government programs, new drug approvals, consumer protection programs, and security efforts robs taxpayers of an effective watch on how their tax dollars are spent."
Norman Solomon, a syndicated columnist on media and politics and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, said in an interview that the subterfuge involved was the most dangerous aspect.
"The 'video news releases' put out by the U.S. government are pernicious because the TV broadcasts often do not tell the viewers that the government is funding and controlling those supposed 'news' reports," he said.
Martin Kaplan, head of the Lear Center at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, believes that as a result, the legitimacy of all news has been undermined.
"It's bad enough that the Bush administration is disseminating domestic propaganda," he told IPS. "But the consequence of their injecting fake news into the media mainstream may be even worse than poisoning public debate on specific issues. It corrodes the ability of real journalism to do its job."
The federal government's practice of sending "packaged news" to media outlets began under the Bill Clinton administration. Pres. Bush has not only continued the practice, he has doubled the amount of federal tax dollars that are used for this purpose, spending 254 million dollars in his first term.
Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy are also working with local groups to establish "citizen agreements" with local stations, under which broadcasters pledge to clearly identify or label pre-packaged reports produced the government.
Soon after the Armstrong Williams scandal broke, Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to 22 federal agencies. She is seeking evidence of similar arrangements between the executive branch, PR firms and pundits.
FOIA was signed into law by President Johnson in 1966 to increase public access to federal government records.
Since Bush entered office, the report says, there has been a more than 75 percent increase in the amount of government information classified as secret each year. There has been a corresponding explosion in the number of requests for information under FOIA.
"Yet an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone un-enumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, Web sites, and official databases," says Steven Aftergood.
Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service
