NationStates Jolt Archive

This is really not good....whatever the ideological stance no one can say that censoring scientific documents is a good thing...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm

Video to the programme... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear

BBC correspondent Hilary Andersson

See pictures and read Hilary's account of life for some of the world's first global warming refugees
Watch Panorama on Sunday 4 June at 2215 BST on BBC One or live or on demand on this site to find out if the Bush administration has covered up the findings of global warming scientists.

A US government whistleblower tells Panorama how scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed.

Some of America's leading climate scientists claim to Panorama that they have been censored and gagged by the administration.

WHAT PANORAMA FOUND OUT
For five or 10 years the public has not been fully informed. We were not taking the initial steps that need to be taken. If we continue down this path we're going to be past a point at which we can avoid really large climate changes.
Jim Hansen
US climate scientist

If the report had come out it would have been a very strong piece in the presidential election in the US.
Bob Corell
Author of Arctic Assessment Report

If they could suppress it they would. If they couldn't they would ignore it. If they could edit it they would edit it.
Former government official

One of them believes the publication of his report, which catalogues the unprecedented rate of ice melt in the Arctic, was delayed as Americans prepared to vote in 2004.

The scientists claim that when Bush came to power in 2000 his administration selected advice which argued that global warming was not a result of human activities and that the phenomenon could be natural.

But one of the people who suggested the president adopt that position explains to Panorama how he has changed his point of view: "It's now 2006. I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate. I am not the administration. What they want to do is their business. it has nothing to do with what I believe."

Panorama's reporter Hilary Andersson visits some of the first refugees of global warming who come from an island in Arctic Alaska which has been inhabited for 4,000 years ago but is now melting into the sea.

In the last six years most industrialised nations have cut greenhouse gas emissions but under Bush America's emissions have increased by an average of one per cent a year.

The administration is now spending money to establish cleaner ways of burning coal and to cut emissions but is still reluctant to risk damaging the American fuel industries.


President George W Bush
I told the world I thought the Kyoto deal was a lousy deal for America. It meant that we had to cut emissions below 1990 levels which would have meant I would have presided over massive lay offs and economic destruction.
President George W Bush
Energy is central to our economy. If you're going to make energy policy you need to talk to the energy industry.
James Connaughton
Bush's senior adviser on the environment

But some scientists say this will take too long. One of them tells Panorama how he was told NASA would have to approve everything he planned to write and say publicly about the effects of global warming.

Another scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tells Panorama he had research which established global warming could increase the intensity of hurricanes. He was due to give an interview about his work but claims he was gagged.

Three weeks later in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed at least 1,200 people in New Orleans and was recorded as one of the strongest Atlantic storms. But the NOAA website said unusual hurricane activity is not related to global warming.

Panorama learns that some scientists are afraid that what they see as a cover up will leave it too late for the US to have any hope of controlling climate changes brought about by global warming.

This is the standardized way to argue against Global Warming/Climate change. Deny the evidence exists; suppress new evidence from getting out.

Climate Change deniers NEVER argue the evidence, or if they do, they argue basic (yet catchy,) first year student-type questions. They use as evidence fabrications and revisionist history (OMG, in the 1970s, scientists said there'd be an ice age!!)

When rebutted, they never counter those rebuttals. They just use their original talking points again. They think they win arguments by repeating their already punctured prose.

Saying "it's natural cycles" is not an answer. Natural cycles have natural causes. If you can identify the specific natural causes that are creating the warming/climate change effects, then you have just dispproved man-made Climate Change.

No one to date has done this. Natural cycles are not magic. They are not proof against alterations in the climate cycle. Natural cycles do not have an immaculate conception.

One uses science to counter science, not ill-informed, oft-repeated and intelligence-insulting rhetoric.

That is all.

A number of qualified scientists are saying that the current climate change is natural.

Now, there is a climate change going on, but to blame it all on mankind? That is preposterous. It is possible humanity had a hand in it, but there are other factors. Also, about these so-called record breaking temperatures, records only go back to about the late 1800s, which means there's about 4,999,999,900 years of Earth's history that isn't recorded.

This is the standardized way to argue against Global Warming/Climate change. Deny the evidence exists; suppress new evidence from getting out.

Climate Change deniers NEVER argue the evidence, or if they do, they argue basic (yet catchy,) first year student-type questions. They use as evidence fabrications and revisionist history (OMG, in the 1970s, scientists said there'd be an ice age!!)

When rebutted, they never counter those rebuttals. They just use their original talking points again. They think they win arguments by repeating their already punctured prose.

Saying "it's natural cycles" is not an answer. Natural cycles have natural causes. If you can identify the specific natural causes that are creating the warming/climate change effects, then you have just dispproved man-made Climate Change.

No one to date has done this. Natural cycles are not magic. They are not proof against alterations in the climate cycle. Natural cycles do not have an immaculate conception.

One uses science to counter science, not ill-informed, oft-repeated and intelligence-insulting rhetoric.

That is all.
There is no proof that man is causing climatic change. The only thing we know is that there is climate change. Also, there have been many times in the past where the climate has changed this dramatically, I.E. the Ice Ages. Look at the Little Ice Age. That took place from the 1500s to the 1800s.

This is really not good....whatever the ideological stance no one can say that censoring scientific documents is a good thing...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm

Video to the programme... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear

BBC correspondent Hilary Andersson

See pictures and read Hilary's account of life for some of the world's first global warming refugees
Watch Panorama on Sunday 4 June at 2215 BST on BBC One or live or on demand on this site to find out if the Bush administration has covered up the findings of global warming scientists.

A US government whistleblower tells Panorama how scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed.

Some of America's leading climate scientists claim to Panorama that they have been censored and gagged by the administration.

WHAT PANORAMA FOUND OUT
For five or 10 years the public has not been fully informed. We were not taking the initial steps that need to be taken. If we continue down this path we're going to be past a point at which we can avoid really large climate changes.
Jim Hansen
US climate scientist

If the report had come out it would have been a very strong piece in the presidential election in the US.
Bob Corell
Author of Arctic Assessment Report

If they could suppress it they would. If they couldn't they would ignore it. If they could edit it they would edit it.
Former government official

One of them believes the publication of his report, which catalogues the unprecedented rate of ice melt in the Arctic, was delayed as Americans prepared to vote in 2004.

The scientists claim that when Bush came to power in 2000 his administration selected advice which argued that global warming was not a result of human activities and that the phenomenon could be natural.

But one of the people who suggested the president adopt that position explains to Panorama how he has changed his point of view: "It's now 2006. I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate. I am not the administration. What they want to do is their business. it has nothing to do with what I believe."

Panorama's reporter Hilary Andersson visits some of the first refugees of global warming who come from an island in Arctic Alaska which has been inhabited for 4,000 years ago but is now melting into the sea.

In the last six years most industrialised nations have cut greenhouse gas emissions but under Bush America's emissions have increased by an average of one per cent a year.

The administration is now spending money to establish cleaner ways of burning coal and to cut emissions but is still reluctant to risk damaging the American fuel industries.


President George W Bush
I told the world I thought the Kyoto deal was a lousy deal for America. It meant that we had to cut emissions below 1990 levels which would have meant I would have presided over massive lay offs and economic destruction.
President George W Bush
Energy is central to our economy. If you're going to make energy policy you need to talk to the energy industry.
James Connaughton
Bush's senior adviser on the environment

But some scientists say this will take too long. One of them tells Panorama how he was told NASA would have to approve everything he planned to write and say publicly about the effects of global warming.

Another scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tells Panorama he had research which established global warming could increase the intensity of hurricanes. He was due to give an interview about his work but claims he was gagged.

Three weeks later in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed at least 1,200 people in New Orleans and was recorded as one of the strongest Atlantic storms. But the NOAA website said unusual hurricane activity is not related to global warming.

Panorama learns that some scientists are afraid that what they see as a cover up will leave it too late for the US to have any hope of controlling climate changes brought about by global warming.
I do not know whether or not it is true that the government is censoring scientific data(If it is, then I shall again disagree with Bush on an issue. I used to approve of him greatly, but since the illegal immigration issue flared up, I am almost disgusted with him.), all I know is that if this issue must be made a priority, independent scientists around the world should research the climatic change even more than they currently are.

A number of qualified scientists are saying that the current climate change is natural.

Name them. What are their degrees in? Contrast that handful of dissenters to the vast consensus of qualified scientists in pertinent fields who say the current climate change is NOT natural.


Now, there is a climate change going on, but to blame it all on mankind? That is preposterous. It is possible humanity had a hand in it, but there are other factors.

Yes, thank you. That's the position INFORMED people have. Man is effecting the climate by adding inputs into the atmosphere ABOVE and BEYOND what nature is, in addition to reducing rainforests and other man-controlled events. It's not like what nature does goes away just because man is adding to it. OF COURSE there are other factors. That's ELEMENTARY.

Also, about these so-called record breaking temperatures, records only go back to about the late 1800s, which means there's about 4,999,999,900 years of Earth's history that isn't recorded.

Ignorance. Ice cores recording temperatures and the composition of the atmosphere go back 600,000 years minimum. Other methods go further back than that. Go inform yourself before making basic mistakes. Denying evidence or being ignorant of it is not a valid argument technique. Also, it's not like the laws of physics have changed since 5 billion years ago. The same forces acting then are acting today. You wouldn't tell Newton his idea about Gravity was hogwash because he's only just invented physics, would you? (last sentence used for humorous effect. Do not take literally.)

-snip-
George Bush agreed in Gleneagle that man-made climate change is real. Shouldn't that end the discussion? How can you out-Bushevik Bush?

There is no proof that man is causing climatic change.

Denying proof is not a valid argumet tactic. To say there is not proof is silly and stupid. One could be justified in saying that the proof is invalid or sketchy or biased or whatever...as long as one had something to back those assertions up with. No, there is loads and loads and loads of proof. Libraries full of proof. Super-computers full of proof. Government agencies full of proof. Universities full of proof.

The only thing we know is that there is climate change. No, that's all YOU know. The rest you have kept yourself willfully ignorant of.


Also, there have been many times in the past where the climate has changed this dramatically, I.E. the Ice Ages. Look at the Little Ice Age. That took place from the 1500s to the 1800s.

Yup. And they've been studied. Do you really think scientists who have studied the subject for DECADES are unaware of little tidbits like that? Do you really think scientists are stupid?

Plus, the causes for such events have been theorized about and tested and retested and chewed over and evidence was found to support the various assertions. The Little Ice Age didn't just happen. Natural forces caused it. Those same natural forces, plus all the others we are aware of at this time cannot accout for the climate change we are seeing right now.

George Bush agreed in Gleneagle that man-made climate change is real. Shouldn't that end the discussion? How can you out-Bushevik Bush?
Oh, I have my ways :) .

Seriously though, I see you have proven records do go that far back, fair enough.

Of the qualified scientists, I can only remember one(He is the one who stands out most in my mind) Sadly, I do not remember his name, I only saw him once on TV. But I do remember his credentials to a degree. He is a professor at MIT who studies climatic change, climatology, and meterology. He said that there is a good chance the climatic change is natural. (It was on that new CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck, who I am a big fan of.) I saw that to be a reasonable theory. The scientific community is actually 50/50 on this issue, much like any other issue.

Denying proof is not a valid argumet tactic. To say there is not proof is silly and stupid. One could be justified in saying that the proof is invalid or sketchy or biased or whatever...as long as one had something to back those assertions up with. No, there is loads and loads and loads of proof. Libraries full of proof. Super-computers full of proof. Government agencies full of proof. Universities full of proof. No, that's all YOU know. The rest you have kept yourself willfully ignorant of.




Yup. And they've been studied. Do you really think scientists who have studied the subject for DECADES are unaware of little tidbits like that? Do you really think scientists are stupid?

Plus, the causes for such events have been theorized about and tested and retested and chewed over and evidence was found to support the various assertions. The Little Ice Age didn't just happen. Natural forces caused it. Those same natural forces, plus all the others we are aware of at this time cannot accout for the climate change we are seeing right now.

Actually, there is evidence on both sides showing what caused climate change. I am still not sure of which, but I think there is a mixture of both natural and man-made factors causing climatic change.

The scientific community is actually 50/50 on this issue, much like any other issue.
No, it's not, and that's the point.

Whether it's vast conspiracy theories, or just a misplaced need to always represent both sides equally, those disagreeing with the consensus have always been getting a lot more media attention than their position deserves. Thus it often appears as if there is a real division, when there is not.

Oh, I have my ways :) .

Seriously though, I see you have proven records do go that far back, fair enough.

Of the qualified scientists, I can only remember one(He is the one who stands out most in my mind) Sadly, I do not remember his name, I only saw him once on TV. But I do remember his credentials to a degree. He is a professor at MIT who studies climatic change, climatology, and meterology. He said that there is a good chance the climatic change is natural. (It was on that new CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck, who I am a big fan of.) I saw that to be a reasonable theory. The scientific community is actually 50/50 on this issue, much like any other issue.

No, the scientific community is not 50/50 on the issue. The overwhelming consensus is on the side of anthropogenic climate change. Read every reputable science journal in publication and you will see for yourself.

Actually, there is evidence on both sides showing what caused climate change. I am still not sure of which, but I think there is a mixture of both natural and man-made factors causing climatic change.

Yes, there are a mixture of natural and man-made forces in play. That's elementary. So when you add the natural to the man made, you get an accelerated change. That's the whole point.

Yawn......go see Al Gores movie...move to higher ground .

..

I'm not sweating it.

I'm not sweating it.

[Guy with 8 beers in him] I'm good to drive.

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=achenbach_s_tempest_and_the_global_warmi&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Basically makes the point that global warming skeptics are no more than very well funded tin-foil hattists.

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=achenbach_s_tempest_and_the_global_warmi&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Basically makes the point that global warming skeptics are no more than very well funded tin-foil hattists.
Just a few years ago, a lot of people would gladly throw someone saying "Global Warming" in a nut house. Looks like today it's more often the other way around... Alas...

I would just add that both natural and human causes could be in play.

It is true we have been on a warming trend long before the age of industrialisation, for the last 20,000 years. This has been one of the arguments of GW sceptics. But then we have the increase of temperatures in the last decades, the rise of ocean levels and loss of Ice, the deforestation to grow farmland (which may have an impact on carbon intake), the extra release of CO2 and Methane from permafrost thawing, the violent storms, the thousands of people dying in Europe during the summer, the increase in skin cancer, the loss of farmland in Africa, etc. etc. etc.

Certainly there was a warming trend before, but I would argue we're adding plenty of wood to the fire.

Just a few years ago, a lot of people would gladly throw someone saying "Global Warming" in a nut house. Looks like today it's more often the other way around... Alas...

I would just add that both natural and human causes could be in play.

It is true we have been on a warming trend long before the age of industrialisation, for the last 20,000 years. This has been one of the arguments of GW sceptics. But then we have the increase of temperatures in the last decades, the rise of ocean levels and loss of Ice, the deforestation to grow farmland (which may have an impact on carbon intake), the extra release of CO2 and Methane from permafrost thawing, the violent storms, the thousands of people dying in Europe during the summer, the increase in skin cancer, the loss of farmland in Africa, etc. etc. etc.

Certainly there was a warming trend before, but I would argue we're adding plenty of wood to the fire.

YOur last sentence puts it very eloquently indeed. IF natural factors are already tipped towards a warming trend and you add it to the documented evidence that adding MORE CO2 causes warming, then we have an already unstable situation being kicked at with steel-toed boots.

CO2 is a trace gas. 350 ppm. 1% is 10000 ppm.

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 350 ppmv
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv

Not included in above dry atmosphere: Water vapor (highly variable) typically 1%

Source for figures above: NASA. Carbon dioxide and methane updated (to 1998) by IPCC TAR table 6.1 [1]. The NASA total was 17 ppmv over 100%, and CO2 was increased here by 15 ppmv. To normalize, N2 should be reduced by about 25 ppmv and O2 by about 7 ppmv.

MAN IS NOT BIGGGER THAN NATURE

CO2 is a trace gas. 350 ppm. 1% is 10000 ppm.

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 350 ppmv
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv

Not included in above dry atmosphere: Water vapor (highly variable) typically 1%

Source for figures above: NASA. Carbon dioxide and methane updated (to 1998) by IPCC TAR table 6.1 [1]. The NASA total was 17 ppmv over 100%, and CO2 was increased here by 15 ppmv. To normalize, N2 should be reduced by about 25 ppmv and O2 by about 7 ppmv.

MAN IS NOT BIGGGER THAN NATURE

Who said man is bigger than nature? You've repeated your percentages off gasses argument several times, and it's been blown out of the water repeatedly. Imagine a boulder, a huge boulder, is perched on a slope. It's already primed to roll. If a man gives it a nudge, down it goes, even though a man by himself does not have the power to lift it or move it if it were on a flat surface.

When a complex system is in equilibrium, or in a relatively stable state, small influences can nudge it one way or the other. THAT is the argument, not that man is creating more CO2 than natural sources, but that man is producing CO2 IN ADDITION to natural sources. The Greenhouse effect is necessary for life, and the planet produces it's own greenhouse effect. That point is not in question. You seem to think that if man adds more to it, then something AUTOMATICALLY kicks in to combat that effect? DO you have proof for that something?

Personally I’d prefer a world with slightly more erratic climates than one that's dealing with all the economically devastating “solutions” to global warming.

It’s happening and human activity is probably contributing to it. I just don’t believe it will be as big a deal as all the alarmists want us to believe it will be, especially since some of those said alarmists have anti-corporate or anti-capitalist agendas.

Personally I’d prefer a world with slightly more erratic climates than one that's dealing with all the economically devastating “solutions” to global warming.

It’s happening and human activity is probably contributing to it. I just don’t believe it will be as big a deal as all the alarmists want us to believe it will be, especially since some of those said alarmists have anti-corporate or anti-capitalist agendas.

If you're of the opinion that the climate is too complex a system for scientists to really get a handle on, then you have to extend the same skepticism to macro-economics. After all, despite economists greatest efforts, we do go into recessions and whatnot from time to time. How do you know a more efficient system with less waste will be bad for the economy? Because some economists tell you so? Seems counter-intuitive to me, in fact. And how many economists projections have failed, especially over a 10 or more year span? Most of them is how many.

If you're going to be skeptical of "experts" perhaps you should be skeptical across the board, otherwise YOU are the one with an agenda and a clear bias.

I think the main point is being missed.

It is not whether or not GW is happening but rather the manipulation of unbiased scientific research by politicians before it is released to the pubilc.

This is the main issue.

Without full openess from the Whitehouse climate change will not be tackled. Don't forget that there are other countries such as China and India that also produce much 'pollution'.

Without the US fully supporting climate change research findings it will also be swept under the carpet by other nations that are not interested in the long term future of this planet.

This is the fundimental crux...no one but the most partisan would deny that global warming is happening.

I think the main point is being missed.

It is not whether or not GW is happening but rather the manipulation of unbiased scientific research by politicians before it is released to the pubilc.

This is the main issue.

Without full openess from the Whitehouse climate change will not be tackled. Don't forget that there are other countries such as China and India that also produce much 'pollution'.

Without the US fully supporting climate change research findings it will also be swept under the carpet by other nations that are not interested in the long term future of this planet.

This is the fundimental crux...no one but the most partisan would deny that global warming is happening.

The problem is that the people here, arguing pretty weakly that there is no evidence, aren't going to think that the supression of evidence that they don't think exists anyway is a problem.

They're arguing from a position of ignorance and pretending that Scientists, who have been studying the topic intensively for years, have never seen their basic and elementary questions raised before, even though these are the same questions Climate Change skeptics have had for 20 years now.

They WILL NOT accept that new data exists, so why would they care if someone is keeping it from them?

I mean, would a person who resolutely believes that man cannot fly be upset that evidence of the Wright Bros. achievement was suppressed?

The problem is that the people here, arguing pretty weakly that there is no evidence, aren't going to think that the supression of evidence that they don't think exists anyway is a problem.

They're arguing from a position of ignorance and pretending that Scientists, who have been studying the topic intensively for years, have never seen their basic and elementary questions raised before, even though these are the same questions Climate Change skeptics have had for 20 years now.

They WILL NOT accept that new data exists, so why would they care if someone is keeping it from them?

I mean, would a person who resolutely believes that man cannot fly be upset that evidence of the Wright Bros. achievement was suppressed?

Actually I think it is much more fundemental than just not wishing to understand.

The fact is that education is so piss poor in the US and UK that even a basic grasp of the scientific method is beyond most people. That is not only sad but dangerous.

I am not saying that everyone can be an expert in a particuliar field as a layman (there are plenty of exceptions!) but if one understands the basics of hypothesis, theory, law and experimentation then one can become one of those exceptions.

The other problem that science has is this reputation of political infighting and status. This is especially true of controvertial subjects like global warming.

If you do not understand the method and language of science then it is much easier to confuse or obfuscate the issue. What has happened here is a classic example of this.

I remember back in 1976 reading an article in the Stars & Stripes about the 'ozone hole'...30 years and we are still aruguing the toss because the politicians are too scared to face the facts.

science dammit science!!!!

science dammit science!!!!
Read my signature. Our representatives can't even understand time zones.

Read my signature. Our representatives can't even understand time zones.

ye ghods!!!! LOL

that is pretty bad!

ye ghods!!!! LOL

that is pretty bad!

It's not a trait of Democrats alone. Plenty of Republicans who are completely ignorant of basic science.

I think it's a job qualification for elected officials - you have to be too stupid to do anything else without having everything constantly fed to you like baby food.

It's not a trait of Democrats alone. Plenty of Republicans who are completely ignorant of basic science.

I think it's a job qualification for elected officials - you have to be too stupid to do anything else without having everything constantly fed to you like baby food.

Actually I think that a utter lack in basic understanding of science is a job qualification for one to be considered 'normal'....

Actually I think that a utter lack in basic understanding of science is a job qualification for one to be considered 'normal'....

At least in America, there's been a strong "nerd" bias in schools. Being "brainy" is anethema.

This, of course, is one of the stupidest goddam things ever.

At least in America, there's been a strong "nerd" bias in schools. Being "brainy" is anethema.

This, of course, is one of the stupidest goddam things ever.

Not only the US...the UK also has this issue.

Our educational systems are fuxored