Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (18231)	12/11/2007 9:59:53 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36917

Dems cite manipulation in climate report By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 10, 6:17 PM ET WASHINGTON - The White House has systematically tried to manipulate climate change science and minimize the dangers of global warming, asserts a Democratic congressional report issued after a 16-month investigation. Republicans called the report, issued Monday by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a "partisan diatribe" against the Bush administration. The report relies on hundreds of internal communications and documents as well as testimony at two congressional hearings to outline a pattern where scientists and government reports were edited to emphasize the uncertainties surrounding global warming, according to Waxman. Many of the allegations of interference dating back to 2002 have surfaced previously, although the report by the Democratic majority of the House Oversight and Reform Committee sought to show a pattern of conduct. "The Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming," the report concludes. It said the White House over the years has sought to control public access to government climate scientists, suppressed scientific views that conflicted with administration policy and extensively edited government reports "to minimize the significance of climate change." The White House called the findings "rehash and recycled rhetoric" that has been addressed by administration officials in the past. "It's a thinly veiled attempt to distract attention from the administration's efforts ... at the Bali summit," said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore. The report was issued as government officials from across the globe were meeting in Bali, Indonesia, to map out a strategy for dealing with climate change after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol on climate expires. The United States is a participant. Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the House committee, issued his own report disputing the Democrats' conclusions. The Democrats "grossly exaggerated" claims of political interference and ignored "the legitimate role of policymakers, instead of scientists, in making administration policy." said the GOP rebuttal. It said requests to the media about science were referred to scientists. Among the findings cited by the Democrats: • The White House Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, made 294 edits to the administration's 2003 strategic plan for its climate change science program. It said the changes were to either emphasize uncertainties or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming. • Media requests for interviews with climate scientists were routinely routed through the CEQ, which often sought to make available scientists whose views were more aligned with administration policy. • Climate scientists' testimony before Congress was often heavily edited by political appointees. In cases cited in the report scientists were persuaded to play down the human influence on climate change and — in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina — the link between climate change and hurricanes. James Connaugton, the CEQ chairman, rejected suggestions that science was being ignored or suppressed. "This administration has an unparalleled record of supporting funding, advancing and publicizing climate change research," said Connaughton in a statement. "Claims that this administration interfered with scientists and with the science are false." He said that nearly $12 billion has been devoted to advance climate change science since 2001 and that peer reviewed findings by U.S. government scientists have been a prominent part of assessments issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group of international scientists spearheading research into global warming. news.yahoo.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (18231)	12/11/2007 11:16:49 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36917

So the International Pimps of Carbon Credits(IPCC) are exposed... The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” So this figures.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (18231)	12/11/2007 12:04:17 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 36917

Christy still using his bad data? LOL CHRISTY is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Alabama state climatologist. CHRISTY and fellow University of Alabama professor Roy SPENCER co-authored a 2003 global warming study based on extensive data from weather satellites. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. The New York Times reported that when their miscalculations were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere. Message 23516325 The troposphere should warm faster than the sfc, say the models and basic theory. As indeed it does - unless you're wedded to the multiply-corrected Spencer+CHRISTY version of the MSU series. CHRISTY (naturally enough) features in this section, though he seems to have forgotten the US CCSP report, and the executive summary which he authored says Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. See-also previous RC posts. Message 23357005