White House repeatedly edited global warming reports

You mean the WH changed facts before they presented it to the public? I don't believe it. It never happened. La la la la la.. I'm not listening.

Clearly this is a case of more liberal attempts to impugn the infallibilty of the white house.

...or just the Bush admin getting caught thinking everyone is just as dim as he.

Another:



More

Let's not forget, this is a former White House official...not the evil liberal media.

Typical, even more typical now that they are caught they try to make it seem justifiable.

The devil's in the details...
I find it curious that, as damning as this article sounds, they make no effort to inform us as to the specific nature of the edits and changes they charge this man made. That certainly seems like an important detail, one that would help us determine for ourselves whether what was done was something reasonable or something nefarious.

Whenever a news source leaves out such important details, I wonder whether they (A) lacked the details, (B) didn't want to share the details, or (C) aren't very good at their job. I'm inclined to assume that neither A nor C are the case here, which leaves me with B. If B, why wouldn't they want to share those details? Might it be that we'd all see that this issue is not as they suggest?

Curiouser and curiouser...

I heard on NPR yesterday an example of the editing....like if the study said climate changes 'will cause' polar ice cap melting by 2050 etc. that it was editied to read 'may cause'.

Same old story...our scientists disagree with your scientists....much ado about nothing.

Scientific evidence?
If anyone needed a reason to question the conclusions of scientists, here it is:

Good to see you back around, Scrat.

X


No, it isn't much ado about nothing. Because the gentleman making the changes isn't a scientist. He is a lawyer who used to work as a lobbyist in the petroleum industry.

So, it is the scientist's reports being disagreed with by politicians, and summarily changed by politicians. I.e, they are lying about what the scientists actually wrote.

Cycloptichorn

I don't believe the scientists any more than I believe politicians.

Sure, why should we believe scientists when we are discussing science?

You are essentially claiming that it is impossible to have objective information on climate change and instability; this is untrue.

Cycloptichorn

Good to be seen. ;-)

Cycloptichorn is urged to read the Novel-"State of Fear" by Micheal Crichton. In this novel, he uses scientific reports, properly noted, to show a wide range of conclusions. Among which are:

"Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man made"

and

"We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four hundred year cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age"

and

"Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that noone really knows"

... which is why the accurate term for the damage we do to our environment isn't Global Warming, it is Climate Instability.

Chicizara is recommended to read here:

Link

And track down the whole paper if ya can find it; I don't have a digital copy.

And also

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp

It isn't a good idea to get one's science from Fiction writers....

Cycloptichorn

You write of "the damage we do to our environment" as if this is something scientists have proved when I thought it was still very much a question. Perhaps there is research you've seen of which I'm unaware?
And as to changing the term to "climate instability", I started noting this change in the language about the same time GW advocates started having to concede that we'd seen some recent cooling trends. The "reason" I see for changing the term is that the Earth was proving people wrong, and when they couldn't keep clamoring against reason that we were forcing the Earth to overheat, they modified their argument to say that we had broken it and made it less stable. Of course, as I wrote before, I know of no one among this group who has been able to filter out the background noise of natural climate variation and point to anything that's happened that is outside of said noise.

But it is quite possible I simply haven't read something recent which you have. Please share it if you think that's the case.

Scrat,

It is important to note that there are several different issues of pollution and emissions which have a percievable effect on our environment which are all being lumped up into one category in the term 'Climate Instability.'

I along with a lot of scientists have been using this term lately because the whole term 'Global Warming' doesn't reflect the true problems that we cause. I'm not worried about us raising the temperature on the planet. Hell, it's probably a natural thing that the temp goes up some and down some as the years go by. Given the fact that we have survived extremely hot periods and cold periods in our past I doubt that the Earth is going to become unlivable for heat reasons. Though it is a concern; heat pollution does have a marked effect on weather patterns, and here's the key, in localized regions of heat production (such as large cities and industrial sites). While the overall temperature of the planet may remain constant, the local temperatures and weather patterns shift more readily according to man-made pollution and changes. The question as to whether this will spill over into a more substantial climate change is as of yet unresolved, although there is compelling evidence the the 'el nino' winds simply didn't exist before modernization.

I believe that climate instability also has a lot to do with the levels of oxygen and CO2 in the air. The Bush admin took steps to remove levels of CO2 from being considered pollutants, when in many ways elevated Carbon Dioxide levels are one of the greatest dangers to a stable environment that we can imagine. It is without a doubt that elevated levels of CO2 can effect weather patterns and heat patterns. And, surprisingly, it is ocean pollution that causes a lot of our problems here. Most people don't realize that trees, the typical Greenie solution to saving the planet, only convert a relatively small amount of our air to Oxygen. The vast amount is doen by ocean-borne life.

From a pretty simple site on the Oxygen-Carbon cycle:



Changing the surface temperature of the ocean, especailly in coastal regions, can have a major effect on the localized production of oxygen, and the real problem is that pollution in the ocean can have a cascading effect where certain algaes and plankton die off and just don't come back, at least as far as we can tell.

It is unarguable the elevated CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures. I mean, this is a scientific fact. None of Chic's quotes from 'State of Fear' disputes the fact that we are experiencing warmer trends these days, they only dispute whether it is natural or whether we are having an effect upon it. The worry is that increased CO2 production and pollution of our Oceans (which has a magnifying effect upon the CO2 levels) will tip the system of weather over to a point of instability (or NEW stability, which while stable, can bring weather patterns to radically different areas of the globe).

I don't think this should be a partisan issue. We don't need rules and restrictions to know that dumping huge amounts of smog and smoke and waste into our environment IS going to have an effect; it is just a matter of time until we see what those effects are. I don't really feel comfortable gambling on this one; better to play it safe. And, it's nicer to actually be able to breathe the air, don't you think? If you disagree, take a trip to Mexico City sometime and see if you still feel that way.

Cycloptichorn

Cyc., could you fix your link up there so it doesn't stretch the page so?

sure, sorry

Cycloptichorn

True, but the question isn't whether there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect, but whether we're experiencing same and (if the answer to that is 'yes') whether human activity is causing it.

It's easy to overlook the questions that need answering when we focus only on our areas of certainty.