bloc's tags:
Here is some more truth about the Bush admin on the environment.

The Bush Admin's political appointees are suppressing and altering scientific reports from nasa regarding climate change.

Another edit deleted the phrase, “Changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly the result of human activities.” And that phrase was replaced with a phrase that said, “A causal link between the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.” Is this an appropriate change? Does the rephrasing accurately represent the science, or does it mislead the public?

If the documents we have seen so far are representative, it appears that the White House installed a former oil industry lobbyist as the chief of staff for the Council on Environmental Quality and then systematically sought to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from reporting on dangers to health, the environment and the economy. In effect, it appears that there may have been an orchestrated effort to mislead the public about the threat of global climate change.

DR. DREW SHINDELL(nasa scientist): I would say that that is also a misleading statement. While technically true, the first statement, that human activities play the dominant role, is a much more accurate picture of the science.




del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • SeeingRed said on Jan 31, 2007....

    Thanks bloc- Interesting! However you must have the feel by now that I examine and question. Therefore, being this is a recent event I will withhold commentary until both sides of the story have been laid out, to enable complete scrutiny of the subject matter, and to maintain intellectual honesty.Thanks again for the heads up on this news.

  • bloc said on Jan 31, 2007....
    This actually came out a while back, but nothing was asked about it by the republican congress. Now that the dems are in we see it coming up again. Please do look into it and let me know what your sources say.
  • SeeingRed said on Jan 31, 2007....

    Bloc- Suggestion only - Always be careful when opening an assertion with a premise like “more truth”, for it denotes a statement of fact.

    The over site committee held hearings on this issue just this past Tuesday. Ranking member Davis requested documents from CEQ to substantiate the claims. Not all documents have been received or reviewed at this time.

    Therefore we are not dealing with the truth at this time-only allegations. SR

  • silverwhisper said on Feb 01, 2007....
    seeingred, you're familiar i trust w/ reports that other government agencies were similarly muzzled by the bush administration, including IIRC the EPA?

    ed
  • SeeingRed said on Feb 01, 2007....
    Silverwhisper-Don't throw a stone and run.  Please give details of named reports. So I can respond with intellectual honesty - but I need more than this. For no I am not familiar of what you speak but I would like to be. So help me out on this one. I trust you got your information from a reliable source and not some propagnda media outlet. If so it will be rather easy for me to unmask. If not I will thank you for your giving me heads up on this one. 
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 01, 2007....
    seeingred: give me a few minutes and i'll look this up again. it's been a while since i last discussed it.

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 01, 2007....
    The Bush admin appointed an oil industry lobbyist whom altered reports of scientists. As far as I can tell, those are facts. If you know otherwise then I'd love to hear about it.
  • curmudgeon said on Feb 01, 2007....
    bloc - the question is - is the original phrase an accurate reflection of what the geologic record tell us? Is that phrase not misleading?
     
    I've spoken to solar physicists and gelologists and I understand that there are many other processes that affect global climate at work here besides human activity. If climatologists hunt for human effects exclusive to all others, that's exactly what they're going to find, and that's exactly what they've done.
     
    The edit is entirely appropriate. The way the administration went about making the change may be sketchy, but the sentence that came out is vastly more accurate from a scientific perspective than the original.
     
    The scientists who are crying censorship need to look in the mirror. Critics of their viewpoints are virutally shut out of every conference they hold, and they are excoriated by brainless partisan media hacks.
     
    I am not buying into this chicken little crap and I don't see why my tax dollars have to fund it.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 01, 2007....
    conveniently, seeingred, slashdot ran a story about this earlier this morning. they cited this story from the christian science monitor.

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 01, 2007....
    @curm
    there is much more to the story than one sentence. Also, everything I've read and everyone I know says that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding global warming.

    "Critics of their viewpoints are virutally shut out of every conference they hold, and they are excoriated by brainless partisan media hacks."

    I don't buy this, but if you have some links I'd love to read about it. My guess is that hte critics have never published a scientific peer reviewed piece of work outlining their criticism. That's just a guess on my part.
  • bloc said on Feb 01, 2007....
    ed, your link is messed up :( Here is the fixed link. From that link


    @curm
    "More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research."

    It's a lot more than just one sentence.
  • bloc said on Feb 01, 2007....
    @curm
    "I've spoken to solar physicists and gelologists and I understand that there are many other processes that affect global climate at work here besides human activity."

    There are two issues I have with this. First, I'll trust the word of nasa scientists over some people you've spoken to. Second, the fact that other issues can cause climate variations does not in any way show that the science behind the nasa scientists claims is wrong. You say that if they go out and look for human causes then they will find just that. Isn't it also true that if you go out and solely look for alternative causes then you'll find just that? Personally, I think the nasa scientists are smart enough to consider other possibilities and have done so.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 01, 2007....
    thanks for the save on the link, bloc. i don't know how that happened.

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 01, 2007....
    "There was a story about a scientist who got authorized to speak at a conference. He was prohibited from using the phrase 'global warming.' He was allowed to say 'global,' and he could say 'warming,' but he couldn't put them next to each other. It became a charade," source
  • SeeingRed said on Feb 01, 2007....
    Bloc/Silverwhisper- We disagree on much, however I must say I do respect your intellectual honesty. Bloc-the evidence against this lobbyist is mounting, I just took issue with your post heading, inferring that Bush, not a lobbyist was somehow involved. That’s all-furthermore the book is yet to be closed on this case, therefore I will continue to withhold judgment at this time. Silver-thanks glad it was convenient, was going to mention to you to-night not to go crazy looking for it. Reason-if I was in charge I myself would tell those government functionaries: Listen there is a mountain of evidence out there that does not concur with your mind-set. Therefore if you cannot encompass that research in with yours and be objective and honest about all the evidence, then I don’t want to hear  your biased side of it. Got it! I thought you scientist searched for honest answers to real questions? Looks to me like your trying to expand and milk this governments global warming contract. I can understand that-it’s the only place you drop-shots could maintain long term tenure. Now put your lab coats on and get your asses back to work!
  • D6fer said on Feb 01, 2007....
    You know, I've seen alot lately about NASA Scientists and their claims about global warming....Could it be possible that some one or some organization has promised funding for a NASA that would support this angle? The intensity of the so called proof has increased since the Dems took control of congress. Could NASA simply be kissing up to the Democrats? hmmm...... hasn't the democrat party been somewhat less supportive of the space program in previous years?    
    This is a press release from the Committee on Science and Technology June 29th, 2005
    and here is one from July 13th, 2005
    notice the difference?
    The references to weather and environment?
    1st paragraph, last sentence....suspicous?
    There are countless documents and press releases that indicate a possible link
    I'm not saying that it's proof....but the way politics work in Washington, it sure as hell would not suprise me!
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 02, 2007....
    seeingred: that's really what you take from this? seriously?! you don't at all see it as bush or his administration coercing scientists to doctor results? in any way at all?!

    [jaw drops to floor in disbelief]

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 02, 2007....
    @d6fer
    these very circumstantial and minor details point to an agenda, but appointing an oil lobbyist and actually altering scientific reports doesn't bother you much? My mind boggles.
  • SeeingRed said on Feb 02, 2007....

    Gentlemen, I am going to make this as elementary and to the point as I possibly can. We will have no jaw dropping here!

    If there was solid proof of man made global warming we would not be having this discussion. But there is no proof! If there was we would not have scientist in opposition to the premise, they would be all in agreement.

    Science works this way: There are three steps- (observation-hypothesis-testing). We first observe a phenomenon, then we create a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, then we test to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

    Here with global warming we are stuck on the hypothesis and it is being used by media sources and political pundits to their advantage. The scientists who are on the man made global warming band wagon are just at a consensus. This is not proof via testing it is merely a consensus. We do not have a consensus of E=mc2 we have validated that through testing. This is why so many scientist are in disagreement. This is why I do not buy into this scam!

  • D6fer said on Feb 02, 2007....

    @bloc

    it's the agenda that those on our side see as the problem...the basis for the globalization of the world economy.....whenever you take a group of people (scientists) that depend on public or private funding, and you threaten to withhold that funding, you can coerce them into doing some not so honest things. As far as the rest of the world goes they have something to gain from our (The US) buying into this whole global warming hypothesis. If we are limited to what we can produce, and it is far less than current production, then we stand to lose economically. All the while the rest of the worlds production can increase, including those countries that break the rules (China?) So the overall emmisions will not fall. Also what are we looking at here? has it been deemed scientific fact? or is it mearly the consensus of the scientific community? Once upon a time the scientific community beleived that the world was flat...that was the consensus. I'm not saying that overall the earth is not warming, but I definately question the reasoning.

  • bloc said on Feb 02, 2007....
    First, there aren't really any absolute facts, but that's a discussion for another time.

    Second, it was the religious community that thought the earth was flat, and science was in it's infancy back then. You can't compare it to today and get an meaning out of it.

    Third, your agenda is very far fetched. Far more far fetched that the much more believable one. That the oil industry pays to discount global warming. Have you ever considered that agenda and factored it into your point of view?

    Fourth, you can't make a claim about scientists being coerced into making up global warming without giving some shred of evidence. We've very recently seen scientists testify that they have been coerced in the opposite direction by the Bush Admin and it's appointees. Why have you completely ignored this fact and then asserted the opposite with no shred of evidence?

    So what your telling me is that Europe wants us to believe it to hurt our economy while at teh same time some mythical "they" are coercing scientists into making up global warming for some unknown reason. These scientists, in large numbers and many different organizations, are all so scared that they say things they don't believe. The motive of the mythical "they" still needs to be outlined for this to make any sense.

    And somehow you believe that all of this is real, but oil companies paying for agenda driven science and many scientists honestly believing in global warming based on test theories isn't? Wow!
  • D6fer said on Feb 03, 2007....

    First of all those that have the very most to lose by acknowledgement of this hypothesis are going to try like hell to discount it....don't they have the right to? After all, what if it is determined to be un-true? How can you restore what rightfully belongs to an american industry? To our economy? Isn't the paid counter point part of the process, of getting to the actual truth? One thing is for sure, alot more money will be spent on research of this hypothesis.

    As far as Europe is concerned, you are missing my point. It isnt about bringing the US down as much as it is bringing themselves up....understandable....but we have the right to block it.  As far as our own scientists go.... I think the evidence I provided in the links is more than circumstancial. NASA could see the writing on the wall....the Dems were coming to gut the program if their conditions were not met... is that REALLY so hard to believe?

    You know there are so many facets to this subject, that you could have many different discussions.... something tells me we will ;)

  • silverwhisper said on Feb 03, 2007....
    seeingred: there's been no testing of the theory of relativity? that's gonna surprise the hell out of an astrophysicist friend of mine.

    [jaw remains firmly on the floor]

    i see there's really no point in my saying anything further here.

    ed
  • SeeingRed said on Feb 04, 2007....
    Silverwhisper-please re-read my comment.
  • theobjectionist said on Feb 05, 2007....

    I think it has been clear to the majority of intelligent people that global warming has been occurring for some time now; the question at hand now is how to stop it while minimizing damage to our interests.

Comment on "Bush Admin suppresses and alters nasa reports on climate change"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

It's not about gay or straight......
Me?.....Not so much...
In Huntsville Ark,the owners of the Faubus Motel in Northwest Arkansas say they replaced "Old Glory" with a confederate flag outside their business after the election of Barack Obama but not b/c the New President is Black,NO! No,owners James and Linda...





So how are you liking socialism so far?




...
Giant squid video...

Subscribe to the SoulCast Newsletter To Receive the Best Uncensored Blogs About Love, Sex, Relationships, God, Politics, and More.


Ever wonder what people really think and how they really live?

Read about the real lives of regular people like you whose powerful moving blogs will make you smile, cry, emotional, and warm inside.

Your FREE SoulCast newsletter is just moments away. Receive your first feel-good blog by entering your email address below.

First Name:
Your Email:


You can unsubscribe at any time with one click. We NEVER sell or share your email address with anyone. Period. close