Chairman: Bush officials misled public on global warming

[Predicto]

Some of the latest articles about the new IPCC report show slower sea level rises then previously predicted. Some need to remember that scientists still don't know what will happen with global warming AND they need to quit using this for political reason like this moron...

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the situation is not as not as dire as some people think.

Fine.

I still want to know whether the politicos in the Administration fudged the scientists' reports to get the result they wanted. Hundreds of scientists are claiming that they did. If it is true, it is pretty damn repulsive.

That is the question in this thread, and making fun of Waxman's appearance doesn't change it.

[Johnny Punani]

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the situation is not as not as dire as some people think.

Fine.

I still want to know whether the politicos in the Administration fudged the scientists' reports to get the result they wanted. Hundreds of scientists are claiming that they did. If it is true, it is pretty damn repulsive.

That is the question in this thread, and making fun of Waxman's appearance doesn't change it.

Well, if you are so repulsed about governmet officals meddling into scientific reports then I'm sure you will be equally repulsed about the article posted here a week ago about the new IPCC report where government officials from several countries are changed the wording of the report.

The 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by government officials for several days in Paris next week and released to the public on Feb. 2.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188670

[SnyderShrugged]

well, since this is being pushed by the group "union of concerned scientists" I figured I had better do some research just to ensure we all understood the motives of the report.

hmmm, I'm a little concerned...

seems as though they have travelled this road before to no avail.

"In 1997, the UCS circulated a petition entitled "A Call to Action". The petition called for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was signed by 110 Nobel Prize laureates, including 104 Nobel Prize-winning scientists.

In February 2004, the Union received press attention for their publication "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking". This report criticized the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush for "politicizing" science. Some of the allegations include altering reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on global warming and choosing members of scientific advisory panels based on their political views rather than scientific experience. In July 2004, the Union released an addendum to the report in which they criticize the Bush administration and allege that reports on West Virginia strip mining had been improperly altered, and that "well-qualified" nominees for government posts, such as Nobel laureate Torsten Wiesel were rejected because they were openly critical of the Bush Administration and its policies.

On April 2, 2004, Dr. John Marburger, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a statement claiming that incident descriptions in the UCS report are "false," "wrong," or "a distortion."[6] Marburger expressed disappointment and dismissed the report as "biased." [7]. UCS rebutted the White House document by saying that Marburger's claims were unjustified. UCS later wrote that since that time, the Bush administration has been virtually silent on the issue. [8]

On October 15, 2005, in response to what it termed a "changing political climate," the Union of Concerned Scientists announced the creation of a new "Scientific Integrity Program" to analyze and advocate scientific integrity and against politically-motivated interference.

On October 30, 2006, the Union issued a press release claiming that high-ranking members of the U.S. Department of the Interior, including Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald, systematically tampered with scientific data in an effort to undermine the protection of endangered species and the Endangered Species Act[9].

On December 11, 2006, the UCS issued a statement signed by 10,600 leading scientists including Nobel laureates. The statement calls for the restoration of scientific integrity to federal policy-making. The announcement came as the group released an "A to Z" guide that documents suspected censorship and political interference in federal science."

Critics have called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist" group[10], and noted that UCS funding often comes from organizations that support liberal policies[11]. UCS received an "Ideological Spectrum Rating" of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center.[12] Activistcash.com states that the UCS "embraces an environmental agenda" and "politicizes science" itself.[13]

same story, same leftist agenda, different year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

guess we have the answer

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Guess wikipedia is reliable on this.

[SnyderShrugged]

Guess wikipedia is reliable on this.

seems pretty specific, but I cant say with 100% certainty either. I will never be dishonest in source validation

[Johnny Punani]

Guess wikipedia is reliable on this.

The sources they quote are.

[SonnyRules]

2nd paragraph; first few words: "Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California".....then I stopped reading.

[Larry]

2nd paragraph; first few words: "Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California".....then I stopped reading.

Absolutely.

First rule in the GOP playbook:

When confronted by any information whatsoever, immediately, before even examining the information, examine the author for any excuse whatsoever to ignore the information. A D after his name is sufficient. So is membership in or affiliation with any organization which has not been GOP certified as ideologically pure.

Any information which is not released on GOP letterhead must be ignored.

(At least SnyderShrugged came up with a longer-winded excuse to ignore information he doesn't like.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Absolutely.

First rule in the GOP playbook:

When confronted by any information whatsoever, immediately, before even examining the information, examine the author for any excuse whatsoever to ignore the information. A D after his name is sufficient. So is membership in or affiliation with any organization which has not been GOP certified as ideologically pure.

Any information which is not released on GOP letterhead must be ignored.

(At least SnyderShrugged came up with a longer-winded excuse to ignore information he doesn't like.)

LOL, first, not a GOP guy here.

second...I ignore information that is blatently driven by ideology and political agenda alone. They blew their credibility a long time ago. Hey, you'd think if you threw the same tired old charges out enough times they must be true, riiiiiigghhht.

[alexey]

Critics have called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist" group[10], and noted that UCS funding often comes from organizations that support liberal policies[11]. UCS received an "Ideological Spectrum Rating" of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center.[12] Activistcash.com states that the UCS "embraces an environmental agenda" and "politicizes science" itself.[13]

same story, same leftist agenda, different year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

guess we have the answer

This may come as a surprise, but large corporations often set up organizations such as CRC and CCF (owner of activistcash.com) to influence the weak minded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center

The Capital Research Center came under fire in the 1990s for publishing studies highly critical of charities which engaged in anti-tobacco lobbying efforts [5]. These charities include the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society. It was later revealed that tobacco giant Philip Morris provided $50,000 in funding to the Capital Research Center [6].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activistcash.com

CCF has campaigned against positions held by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It funds a number of websites, such as ActivistCash.com.

[Predicto]

Critics have called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist" group[10], and noted that UCS funding often comes from organizations that support liberal policies[11]. UCS received an "Ideological Spectrum Rating" of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center.[12] Activistcash.com states that the UCS "embraces an environmental agenda" and "politicizes science" itself.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

Hmm. This makes me curious about the "critics."

Who is the "Capital Research Center?"

Hmm... creatd by the Heritage foundation and funded by tobacco groups and so forth??? What a surprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center

Ok, who is is "Activistcash.com."

Hmm, created by a front group for the tobacco and alcohol industries? What a surprise.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash

It never ends.

[Predicto]

damn, beaten like a drum.

[SnyderShrugged]

damn, beaten like a drum.

:laugh: sure you did! whatever makes you feel cool friend.

regardless of the critics, it's plain as day that the data coming from this organization is skewed at best, junk science at worst. The Union of Concerned scientists has pushed every left wing agenda under the sun, from Aids to Nukes. You honestly think anyone with a brain in their head cant see what their agenda and therefore bias is here?

just look at this idiot sample that they claim is representative for proof to the pudding.

hmmmm. Lets see. sent 1600 surveys out, received about 19% back.

anyone with even a little statistics experience knows that the potential non-response bias in their sample would relegate this to useless as a study.(most experts agree that at least 70-80% response rate would be needed for a "good" survey)

http://www.nces.ed.gov/statprog/2002/std4_4.asp

(hint: just like all of their tripe since 1997)

There is a reason that NONE of the allegations that this wacko-lefty group has ever gained an iota of momentum when a deep dive into their "science" is done.

I wont debate that climate change is happenning, and I wont debate that polluting is bad. I just refuse to lay my intelligence on the line for an obvious garbage attempt at spinning their "data" to get it to say what they want.

Show me real science that isnt politicized and then we can talk.

[Predicto]

:laugh: sure you did! whatever makes you feel cool friend.

I meant that alexey got his post in before I did.

[SnyderShrugged]

I meant that alexey got his post in before I did.

please accept my apology then. I misinterpreted what you were saying

[Predicto]

please accept my apology then. I misinterpreted what you were saying

Not a problem.

[SnyderShrugged]

Not a problem.

Thanks!

Now lets talk about the invalid survey! lol

[chomerics]

please accept my apology then. I misinterpreted what you were saying

No, he was talking about Alexey's post, but you were beaten like a drum, so the quote fit just fine :laugh:

I find it utterly preposterous that you would use source which IS the poster child for junk science to defend your case!

It is typical in the republican playbook, and your game is far FAR past its prime. You fund "scientists" to come up with a contrary opinion to obfuscate the waters, while calling the REAL science junk. Do you ever wonder why scientists are almost exclusively democratic supporters? Because the republicans neither CARE, nor UNDERSTAND science. You are serving as a great example in this thread as to how things like this work. . . even though you don't support the GOP :doh:

Well then, tell me if you find it offensive that over HALF of the scientists surveyed had their papers changed by people not in the field for political purposes. Do you agree with doing this? You go off stating that global warming is a "leftist" dream, while COMPLETELY IGNORING THE GLARING EVIDENCE STARING YOU IN THE FACE!!!!!

WAKE UP!!! Your position is going down in flames, just like the GOP is going down in flames. They are wrong on almost EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, from Terry Schaivo, to Iraq, to Katrina, they are ALWAYS wrong. What makes you think they are right this time? Because a closet homosexual parading as a televangelist tells you so, or because another closet homosexual who posts a website full of propaganda tells you? Or is it because yet another closet homosexual who allowed a gay escort to toss lob ball questions to the president says so? Which is it?

[DixieFlatline]

Seems like an appropriate thread to insert this link

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/see_no_dissent_call_it_science.html

It is a sign of how politicized global warming has become when a father's push for his daughter's junior high school science class to present both sides of the global warming controversy becomes a national story -- with the father being portrayed as the villain.

To recap, Frosty Hardison, the parent of a seventh-grader who attends school in Federal Way, Wash., was troubled to learn that science teacher Kay Walls had planned on showing her class Al Gore's global-warming pic "An Inconvenient Truth" -- without presenting any contrary information.

Hardison is an evangelical Christian who, as The Washington Post reported, sees global warming as "one of the signs" of Judgment Day. That is, Hardison fits the sort of stereotype bound to attract national media attention under the rubric: religious zealot fights science in schools.

The school board put a moratorium on showing the movie -- since lifted -- while it investigated whether Wells was violating a school policy requiring that, when class materials "show bias," educators "point out the biases, and present additional information and perspectives to balance those biases."

On the one hand, it is a sad commentary that districts see a need to restrict teachers' ability to communicate -- and that this country has become so sensitive that parents feel a need to muzzle what teachers can say in class. On the other hand, we've all seen teachers who think their political views are gospel.

In this case, Walls told The Washington Post that she could not find any authoritative articles that counter "An Inconvenient Truth" -- other than a 32-year-old Newsweek article. CNN apparently went to the same school as Walls, as it aired a segment in which University of Maryland Professor Phil Arkin asserted, "I don't think there is legitimately an actual opposing viewpoint to the 'Inconvenient Truth' film."

Allow me to present a few names. Massachusetts Institute of Technollogy's Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Richard S. Lindzen complained to the Boston Globe about the "shrill alarmism" of Gore's flick. Neil Frank, who was considered authoritative when he was the director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years.

...... see link for rest of article

[Larry]

regardless of the critics, it's plain as day that the data coming from this organization is skewed at best, junk science at worst. The Union of Concerned scientists has pushed every left wing agenda under the sun, from Aids to Nukes. You honestly think anyone with a brain in their head cant see what their agenda and therefore bias is here?

OK, so let me see is I've got the chronology of this thread boiled down, here: (Ignoring such amusing little side jaunts as Sarge announcing that the obvious purpose of a Congressional Investigation is to pursue a politically-motivated witch hunt, leading to a quest for any excuse, no matter how unrelated, to conduct an impeachment. As near as I can tell, with a straight face.)

• alexey posts a news article. The article quotes the chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to research on global warming. The article quotes the chairman as saying that the White House is hiding information from Congress (although the part I read doesn't have any evidence of this). And the article quotes information from an advocacy group that is willing to talk to Congress on the subject.
  
• SnyderShruged "see a prominent Dem with a vendetta just like most".
  
• SnyderShruged decides that what's needed in this discussion is to ignore the subject of the article, ignore the source for the article, and investigate the background of the source's source. He cites Wikipedia to demonstrate that the people who the congressman is talking to have, in the past, expressed opinions which he disagrees with.
  
• (SonnyRules takes a more direct approach, and investigates the article's source, rather than the source's source. He observes that the source is of the wrong political party, and therefore there's no reason to even answer the question the Congressman asked.)
  
• SnyderShrugged announces that "I ignore information that is blatently driven by ideology and political agenda alone"
  
• alexey points out that the source of the information smearing the Congressman's source is a professional "smear tank", originally founded for the purpose of smearing any organization that tried to get people to stop smoking.
  
• Predicto points out that, in fact, both of SnyderShrugged's sources are simply front organizations founded for the purpose of attacking the credibility of anybody who says bad things about powerful corporations.
  
• SnyderShrugged announces that it doesn't matter what his sources are, because obviously the Congressman's source is biased and has an agenda, and any statement supported by a group with an agenda must be ignored.
  

SS, aparantly, doesn't have a problem with agenda-driven sources, if the agenda-driven source supports his claim that someone else is an agenda-driven source. Not even when SS's source appears to be an organization which was founded for the purpose of accusing other people of being like they, themselves, are. An organization, in short, who's profession is hypocracy.

Now, aparantly, it's OK for us to debate whether UCS is an agenda-driven source, and ignore the agenda-driven source that was used to try to divert the topic.

But the topic of this thread, is the question "Did the Bush administration deliberately alter scientific data and research for the purpose of protecting campaign contributors?"

So far as I can tell, only one post in three pages actually addressed the subject. (That post was also by SS.) (I'm not counting alexey's post #2, in which he agrees with what he posted in post #1.)

SS pointed out that the UCS survey had only a 20% return rate, and claims that this invalidates the survey.

He might be correct. (I've never heard of a minimum return rate being necessary for a survey to 'count', but I'll certainly agree that it makes sense to me that the folks who respond might have characteristics which differ from those who didn't.) If the question was "what percentage of scientist's research has been altered by the Bush administration?" But the question is "has it happened at all?"

All it takes to answer that question is one survey that says "yes".

[SnyderShrugged]

No, he was talking about Alexey's post, but you were beaten like a drum, so the quote fit just fine :laugh:

I find it utterly preposterous that you would use source which IS the poster child for junk science to defend your case!

It is typical in the republican playbook, and your game is far FAR past its prime. You fund "scientists" to come up with a contrary opinion to obfuscate the waters, while calling the REAL science junk. Do you ever wonder why scientists are almost exclusively democratic supporters? Because the republicans neither CARE, nor UNDERSTAND science. You are serving as a great example in this thread as to how things like this work. . . even though you don't support the GOP :doh:

Well then, tell me if you find it offensive that over HALF of the scientists surveyed had their papers changed by people not in the field for political purposes. Do you agree with doing this? You go off stating that global warming is a "leftist" dream, while COMPLETELY IGNORING THE GLARING EVIDENCE STARING YOU IN THE FACE!!!!!

WAKE UP!!! Your position is going down in flames, just like the GOP is going down in flames. They are wrong on almost EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, from Terry Schaivo, to Iraq, to Katrina, they are ALWAYS wrong. What makes you think they are right this time? Because a closet homosexual parading as a televangelist tells you so, or because another closet homosexual who posts a website full of propaganda tells you? Or is it because yet another closet homosexual who allowed a gay escort to toss lob ball questions to the president says so? Which is it?

waaaaa, my kid crys less when she craps herself

I am not GOP.

I love how you profess "wrong" on every issue just because you disagree, never mind reality

only half of those that RESPONDED, didnt you read the link, no of course not.

The responses are meaningless and prone to high bias. Junk survey, and proven. sorry address the fact that the survey sucked, until then you have no point

[SnyderShrugged]

OK, so let me see is I've got the chronology of this thread boiled down, here: (Ignoring such amusing little side jaunts as Sarge announcing that the obvious purpose of a Congressional Investigation is to pursue a politically-motivated witch hunt, leading to a quest for any excuse, no matter how unrelated, to conduct an impeachment. As near as I can tell, with a straight face.)

• alexey posts a news article. The article quotes the chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to research on global warming. The article quotes the chairman as saying that the White House is hiding information from Congress (although the part I read doesn't have any evidence of this). And the article quotes information from an advocacy group that is willing to talk to Congress on the subject.
  
• SnyderShruged "see a prominent Dem with a vendetta just like most".
  
• SnyderShruged decides that what's needed in this discussion is to ignore the subject of the article, ignore the source for the article, and investigate the background of the source's source. He cites Wikipedia to demonstrate that the people who the congressman is talking to have, in the past, expressed opinions which he disagrees with.
  
• (SonnyRules takes a more direct approach, and investigates the article's source, rather than the source's source. He observes that the source is of the wrong political party, and therefore there's no reason to even answer the question the Congressman asked.)
  
• SnyderShrugged announces that "I ignore information that is blatently driven by ideology and political agenda alone"
  
• alexey points out that the source of the information smearing the Congressman's source is a professional "smear tank", originally founded for the purpose of smearing any organization that tried to get people to stop smoking.
  
• Predicto points out that, in fact, both of SnyderShrugged's sources are simply front organizations founded for the purpose of attacking the credibility of anybody who says bad things about powerful corporations.
  
• SnyderShrugged announces that it doesn't matter what his sources are, because obviously the Congressman's source is biased and has an agenda, and any statement supported by a group with an agenda must be ignored.
  

SS, aparantly, doesn't have a problem with agenda-driven sources, if the agenda-driven source supports his claim that someone else is an agenda-driven source. Not even when SS's source appears to be an organization which was founded for the purpose of accusing other people of being like they, themselves, are. An organization who's profession is hypocracy.

Now, aparantly, it's OK for us to debate whether UCS is an agenda-driven source, and ignore the agenda-driven source that was used to try to divert the topic.

But the topic of this thread, is the question "Did the Bush administration deliberately alter scientific data and research for the purpose of protecting campaign contributors?"

So far as I can tell, only one post in three pages actually addressed the subject. (That post was also by SS.) (I'm not counting alexey's post #2, in which he agrees with what he posted in post #1.)

SS pointed out that the UCS survey had only a 20% return rate, and claims that this invalidates the survey.

He might be correct. (I've never heard of a minimum return rate being necessary for a survey to 'count', but I'll certainly agree that it makes sense to me that the folks who respond might have characteristics which differ from those who didn't.) If the question was "what percentage of scientist's research has been altered by the Bush administration?" But the question is "has it happened at all?"

All it takes to answer that question is one survey that says "yes".

thanks for admitting I was correct. appreciate the long winded approach.

[chomerics]

Again Larry spot on. . .

[Larry]

Just came back here to edit my post. (Too late, I see.)

I did not intend my post to be a "call out" or similar thread, directed at a particular poster.

I did intend it as a call out on a particular tactic.

One of the tactics I'm frustrated with is the "I don't care what the subject of discussion is, let's smear the person who said it".

If nothing else, I think every poster here (with any experience) has agreed with someone that most folks think is his mortal enemy. (For example, I still recall hearing Rush Limbaugh say something that was factual, reasoned, and thought provoking. Once. About 10 years ago.)

But what's actually going on is, frankly, a lot more transparent. It's "Let's not talk about the subject of the article. Let's see is if can smear each other."

Frankly, it's a method of "discussion" that's become so standard that it's become an industry. (SS's two sources work in that industry.)

It's the "I don't ike reality, so let's see if we can create enough of a smokescreen so that people will leave the status quo alone long enough for us to make a bunch more money."

The tobacco industry has known for something like 50 years that their products were killing people. But is they could generate enough smoke (clever the way I got that phrase in there), then they could manage to get another 50 years profit from other people's deaths.

Now, no, I don't think global warming is proven. I don't think it can be proven without a time machine. (I see people, 100 years from now, saying "Well, yeah, the Earth's been warming up for the last 100 years, but it might just be a temporary thing. We need to wait 1,000 years, and see if it changes.") (OTOH, I'll also say that there seem to be some evbidence that suggests that it is. And I know that we've proven that the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere has changed, just in my lifetime.)

(I think chom's posted the data, here, a few times. If I'm not mistaken, then the percentage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has gone up enormously in the last 100 years. (I've just done some google-ing, and come up with some varrying numbers. One "pro warming" site said CO2 has gone up 25% in 150 years. One "anti-warming" site says that "only" 17% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made.))

So, no, I don't consider global warming proven.

OTOH, I don't think I need "proof" that polluting (to the point that 17% of the entire atmosphere of the Earth is pollution) is bad, to say that maybe we should stop.

On another politically-charged subject, the "pro-life" people, IMO, have a point when they argue that well, a fetus might be a person and it might not, but doesn't even a "maybe" justify a conclusion that "maybe we shouldn't just casually kill it"?

Now, yeah, it's possible that one side in this debate is panicking prematurely. (I'd even say that it's likely that the media is "shopping" different sources to try to find the most alarmist ones. Doesn't prove an agenda: The same media, when there's a hurricane, drives up and down the beach to find the most destroyed house to stand in front of for their report. The media loves stories for scares and destruction.)

OTOH, it's absolutely proven that at least some of the other "side" is simply professional "smear for hire" organizations who's sole purpose is to prevent people from taking any action at all.

One side wants to reduce pollution. One side wants to increase it.

If we believe Al Gore, and 1,000 years from now, it turns out he was wrong? Then we'll have stopped polluting when we didn't need to.

If we believe Exxon, and we're wrong, then we'll just keep "peeing in the pool" until the damage is so bad that even people who's profession is disputing reality for a living can't obfuscate it any more. And then what do we do? What do we do when, say, half of the total CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is man-made, dumped there over a period of centuries, and the damage (the climate change) has been going on so long, and so obviously, that it can't be covered up any more?

[chomerics]

waaaaa, my kid crys less when she craps herself

I am not GOP.

I love how you profess "wrong" on every issue just because you disagree, never mind reality

only half of those that RESPONDED, didnt you read the link, no of course not.

The responses are meaningless and prone to high bias. Junk survey, and proven. sorry address the fact that the survey sucked, until then you have no point

You'd think you would like understand what is wrong with the GOP's side in the issue of global warming, but you go ahead and prove to everyone here just how and why people like Rush Limbaugh have a radio show, and who listens to him.

It is funny, because ignorance holds no virtue . . . yet one would never understand this talking to you.