Chairman: Bush officials misled public on global warming

[Sarge]

Why lookie here

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/01/D8N10JFG0.html

Humans 'Very Likely' Making Earth Warmer

Feb 01 10:38 AM US/Eastern

By SETH BORENSTEIN

Associated Press Writer

PARIS (AP) -- The most authoritative report on climate change is using the strongest wording ever on the source of global warming, saying it is "very likely" caused by humans and already is leading to killer heat waves and stronger hurricanes, delegates who have seen the report said Thursday.

Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats from 113 countries are editing the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-door meetings in Paris.

I'll answer for Chommie

OH MY GOD!!!!! How can these people do that? A bunch of HACKS!!!!!! sitting around EDITING!!!!!! a paper? And behind CLOSED DOORS How arrogant are these losers? THeir game is so transparent, they must take us for fools

[alexey]

Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats from 113 countries are editing the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-door meetings in Paris.

I'll answer for Chommie

That's cute, but the combination of words "closed" and "door" may not always mean the same thing!

One is talking about administration officials changing wording used by scientists, and the other is talking about scientists getting together to figure out what that wording should be. Hey, both are done behind "closed doors" :laugh:

Starting with a conslusion and then trying to find reasons for it must be quite a burden... mental gymnastics involved in that must be very tiring. Don't worry, there is always anger to hold things together when reason fails to do so.

[Johnny Punani]

That's cute, but the combination of words "closed" and "door" may not always mean the same thing!

One is talking about administration officials changing wording used by scientists, and the other is talking about scientists getting together to figure out what that wording should be. Hey, both are done behind "closed doors" :laugh:

Starting with a conslusion and then trying to find reasons for it must be quite a burden... mental gymnastics involved in that must be very tiring. Don't worry, there is always anger to hold things together when reason fails to do so.

Nice try at spinning that. :applause:

[Predicto]

Nice try at spinning that. :applause:

Except for the part where alexey is absolutely right. This is exactly how they should be doing it, and no different than any other effort to consolidate massive amounts of information and expert opinion.

How do you think dozens of people discuss sensitive issues like this in order to reach a concensus? By yelling at each other on Fox News?

[Johnny Punani]

Except for the part where alexey is absolutely right. This is exactly how they should be doing it, and no different than any other effort to consolidate massive amounts of information and expert opinion.

How do you think dozens of people discuss sensitive issues like this in order to reach a concensus? By yelling at each other on Fox News?

Too bad you are assuming this. Government officials don't need to hold secret meetings to change the wording of a scientific study.

[EersSkins05]

Uh, why would these guys want outside input while wording their report- they're the EXPERTS... lol

Good job completely ignoring the fact that a new scientific study is about to place the most significant emphasis seen to date on the effect that humans have on global warming.

[Sarge]

Uh, why would these guys want outside input while wording their report- they're the EXPERTS... lol

Good job completely ignoring the fact that a new scientific study is about to place the most significant emphasis seen to date on the effect that humans have on global warming.

And who's to say they don't have an agenda as well? Lots of grant money in researchgin global warming. Keep dinner on the table for a few years

[Johnny Punani]

Uh, why would these guys want outside input while wording their report- they're the EXPERTS... lol

Good job completely ignoring the fact that a new scientific study is about to place the most significant emphasis seen to date on the effect that humans have on global warming.

Thank for missing the point which is when you start editing things to get the most important information people tend to add their own importance to specific information. The IPCC should have make an abbreviated report for governments themselves.

[Predicto]

Too bad you are assuming this. Government officials don't need to hold secret meetings to change the wording of a scientific study.

I suppose the studies write themselves?

Or more specifically, I suppose reports summarizing and compiling hundreds of such studies also write themselves?

OH MY GOD WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???????

[Predicto]

Thank for missing the point which is when you start editing things to get the most important information people tend to add their own importance to specific information. The IPCC should have make an abbreviated report for governments themselves.

but but but they would have done it in "closed door meetings!!!!!!!!!"

[SonnyRules]

(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.)

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

Mr. Waxman has blown his credibility with me a long, long time ago. I simply don't listen to politicians, regardless what side of the aisle they happen to be sitting, who bloviate political agendas rather than sticking to hard facts.

Hence, when it comes to global warming, there are plenty of places to go and do some scientific research in order to form an opinion rather than some political ideology. Why waste my time?

[SnyderShrugged]

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.

isnt it ironic then that

1. Im not GOP

2. I havnt listened to Rush in over 7 years

3. You portray your ignorance here daily

[alexey]

And who's to say they don't have an agenda as well? Lots of grant money in researchgin global warming. Keep dinner on the table for a few years

Of course they have an agenda. Everybody has an agenda by definition. Ability to dismiss a point because there is agenda behind will give you an ability to dismiss any point you disagree with. This way to avoid discussion is as old as humanity itself.

[SnyderShrugged]

Of course they have an agenda. Everybody has an agenda by definition. Ability to dismiss a point because there is agenda behind will give you an ability to dismiss any point you disagree with. This way to avoid discussion is as old as humanity itself.

science and an agenda cannot mix. There should be as little bias as possible in any study. This goes for both sides of this debate

[alexey]

Nice try at spinning that. :applause:

Would you care to dispute my point, or do you consider simply calling it "spin" to be sufficient?

[alexey]

science and an agenda cannot mix. There should be as little bias as possible in any study. This goes for both sides of this debate

Well of couse science tries to eliminate bias, but completely eliminating bias is simply impossible.

The other side of the Global Warming debate often does the opposite - the bias is introduced in order to resonate with biases of the target audience, thus attempting to discredit the science. You have to have bias to resonate with though. That is the reason why this strategy is most successful with people who do not try to recognize and minimize biases inherent to human nature within themselves.

Do you think it's a coincidence GOP wants to keep as many people as possible without a college education?

[Johnny Punani]

Would you care to dispute my point, or do you consider simply calling it "spin" to be sufficient?

You know what point I made. If you continue to have problems you can read more of this thread.

[Predicto]

science and an agenda cannot mix. There should be as little bias as possible in any study. This goes for both sides of this debate

The spin comes in which studies you credit, which scientists you listen to, etc. The global warming denial side has a small group of scientists (you will see the same 2 or 3 names over and over, like William Grey and Linzen) and a large group of paid lobbyists and shills who cite those same handful of scientists over and over in different ways to make it look like there is more substance to the debate. The other side has innumerable scientists and studies, but nowhere near as much money calculatingly promoting their names and findings.

As to the other thing, the problem with your view of bias is that it is unreasonable to dismiss one side solely because they are repeatedly advocating that their side is the correct one, or because they are supported by some people you do not like. At the turn of the century, American communists were in favor of child labor protection laws. That didn't prove that child labor protection laws were necessarily bad, even though the communists were morons.

[Johnny Punani]

Well of couse science tries to eliminate bias, but completely eliminating bias is simply impossible.

The other side of the Global Warming debate often does the opposite - the bias is introduced in order to resonate with biases of the target audience, thus attempting to discredit the science. You have to have bias to resonate with though. That is the reason why this strategy is most successful with people who do not try to recognize and minimize biases inherent to human nature within themselves.

Do you think it's a coincidence GOP wants to keep as many people as possible without a college education?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: That is great!

[Johnny Punani]

The spin comes in which studies you credit, which scientists you listen to, etc. The global warming denial side has a small group of scientists (you will see the same 2 or 3 names over and over, like William Grey and Linzen) and a large group of paid lobbyists and shills who cite those same handful of scientists over and over in different ways to make it look like there is more substance to the debate. The other side has innumerable scientists and studies, but nowhere near as much money calculatingly promoting their names and findings.

As to the other thing, the problem with your view of bias is that it is unreasonable to dismiss one side solely because they are repeatedly advocating that their side is the correct one, or because they are supported by some people you do not like. At the turn of the century, American communists were in favor of child labor protection laws. That didn't prove that child labor protection laws were necessarily bad, even though the communists were morons.

So who funds the studies of the "innumerable scientists"?

[Predicto]

So who funds the studies of the "innumerable scientists"?

Is that a rhetorical question? It comes from many directions - government sources, university sources, foundations. I am sure that some of those sources have an "agenda" too, but not all of them.

Since virtually all of the anti-global warming stuff can be traced back to one source - Exxon/Mobil and the think tanks it has funded - I think the contrast is obvious.

[Johnny Punani]

Is that a rhetorical question? It comes from many directions - government sources, university sources, foundations. I am sure that some of those sources have an "agenda" too, but not all of them.

Since virtually all of the anti-global warming stuff can be traced back to one source - Exxon/Mobil and the think tanks it has funded - I think the contrast is obvious.

You said...

"The other side has innumerable scientists and studies, but nowhere near as much money calculatingly promoting their names and findings."

Yet, their views are plastered all over the place. That doesn't make much sense does it? Nope.

"It comes from many directions - government sources, university sources, foundations. I am sure that some of those sources have an "agenda" too, but not all of them."

You mean ALL those sources have an agenda. Right? That is the real truth. Governments can raise taxes and have more control over it's citizens. Universities get more government and private funding if they research specific areas such as global warming. Foundations get more contributions if they promote a agenda their contributers like to hear.

"Since virtually all of the anti-global warming stuff can be traced back to one source - Exxon/Mobil and the think tanks it has funded - I think the contrast is obvious."

That is a total lie. There are thousands who don't agree with what is being said about global warming. You talk bout Dr Gray and Dr Linzen as being some how on the fringe of respectable science. Dr William Gray is the world's leading expert on Hurricanes and Dr Linzen is an MIT professor and sat on the IPCC itself. You also seem to dismiss their arguement simply because of hey took money from Oil intrests AFTER they came to those opinions. BTW, Dr Gray lost his funding because he didn't tow the global warming line and a different view on global warming's effects on hurricanes. I'm sure to you that sorf of supressing of ideas is fine.

Dr Joe D' Aleo who is also a skeptic will be presenting his views on global warming January 14th - 18th at the American Meteorological Society Meetings.

Dr. Joseph D'Aleo is an elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and former Chief Meteorologist (and co-founder) of The Weather Channel, a position he held for seven years.

Dr. Joseph D'Aleo has 30 years experience in professional meteorology. He has BS and MS degrees in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin and did doctoral studies in meteorology at New York University. He taught meteorology at the college level for over eight years.

He joined Weather Services International (WSI) in 1989, where he was a marketing manager and chief meteorologist. Dr. Joe is also known as "Dr. Dewpoint" and the senior editor for WSI's Intellicast Web site.

Dr. D'Aleo is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. He has authored, presented, and published numerous papers focused on advanced applications enabled by new technologies and how research into ENSO and other atmospheric and oceanic phenomena has made possible skillful seasonal forecasts.

Here are some of his views on Al Gore's movie and global warming itself...

Al Gore and all the network specials said, "scientists overwhelming believe that man is responsible for the current warming (99% some of the network specials)". Flat out not true.

A large majority of the world’s scientists, engineers, environmentalists, educators, social scientists are not meteorologists and climatologists and the majority I am sure believe in global warming and that we are responsible.

Yet I will point out 17,200 signed the Oregon petition asking the US government not to sign Kyoto. Among meteorologists and climatologists, that work at the big national centers like NASA or NCAR or the big universities where they take advantage of the billions of dollars of research money funding modeling and global warming research, will profess their support, although many in private tell me they have some personal doubts. Many are afraid to speak out in the research community for fear of losing their grants (some like Dr. Gray of CSU and Dr Newell of MIT have).

The further you get away from the money though the more skepticism you find. 73% of the American State Climatologists surveyed in 1997 thought natural cycles were most important. My guess is between ½ and 2/3rds of the broadcast and forecast meteorologists believe it is at least in part natural cycles with man’s influence mainly local.

OTHER AL GORE CLAIMS NOT TRUE

The book says man has become more powerful than any force of nature.. Very arrogant statement for us to make. When has man caused earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, cold waves, heat waves?

SEA LEVELS

Al says sea levels will rise 18-20 feet. They rose in the last century 4 inches. The latest IPCC report predicts if temperatures warm as their models suggest (2-4.5C) while CO2 doubles in the next century or so, that sea level would rise 6 to at most 18 inches. (they cut estimates in half from last report). This is a far cry from 18-20 feet.

KILAMANJARO

Glacier disappearing due to global warming (temperatures have been cooling steadily there for 25 years (about ½ degree). The reason it is shrinking is precipitation has been less, in part because of the Atlantic cycle affects precipitation in the Alps and Africa and in part due to deforestation (that is our doing, of course, but not greenhouse gases).

GREENLAND

Greenland ice disappearing and could vanish. Greenland changes with cycles in the Atlantic. Warming as much as 7-10F from late 1800s to the 1930s/1940s, then cooling back down to the cold levels of the 1800s in the 1980s and 1990s. Recently started warming after 1995 as the Atlantic warmed…same change that cause increase in hurricanes

ARCTIC ICE DISAPPEARING

Actually arctic temperatures correlate far better with solar changes and the multidecadal cycles in the Atlantic and Pacific (better than 70% correlation) than with greenhouse gases (just 22%). Arctic temperatures began to rise and ice diminish in 1978 with the Great Pacific Climate Shift and again the last few years when warm Atlantic water made its way under the ice (Russians tracked it to off Siberia….itr has thinned out the ice just like it did from 1880 to 1940 when it thinned 30% .. There is evidence this happens regularly (every 70s years or so. Russians report catching co fish mid 1800s, Choinese squadron could not find any ice in the arctic in early 1400s

ANTARCTIC WARM AND ICE MELT

Actually with the exception of the peninsula that sticks out to 68S latitude where there has been warming, most of the vast continent temperatures have shown no change or cooling. At the South Pole, temperatures have been declining for 50 years with 2004 coldest winter on record.

NASA monitors the ice extent with satellites and they show the ice extent has been growing steadily since 1979. The break-up of the Larsen sea in 2002 was related to an unusual solar flurry of activity from Sept to April that cause significant warming in low and mid latitudes and a shrinking of the polar vortices in both hemispheres. Quickly recovered.

HOCKEY STICK SHOWN – NO MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD AND DOWNPLAYED THE LITTLE ICE AGES TO PLAY UP THE RECENT WARMING

Dozens of the very best climatologists of the early 20th century reconstructed the past history of the earth from proxy data (pine cones, tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, historical accounts had a warm period 800-1400, cold (mini-ice age from 1500 to the 1800s then 20th century warming. This was a problem for the GW crowd because if a big warming happened before naturally greenhouse gases were a problem, why couldn’t the current warming be natural.

One professor at a major University emailed Dr David Deming of U OK – we have to get rid of that medieval warm period. Mann Bradley and Hughes obliged.

Two Canadian scientists/mathematicians and later a congress sponsored group of statistics professors looked at the data and found errors in the data sets used, how they were used and the algorithms to plot the results…when corrected the data and restored the medieval warm and ice ages. National Academy of Sciences also reaffirmed these past natural changes

COMPUTER MODELS ARE ROCK SOLID ACCURATE

They are not accurate

Assume 1% increase (actual 0.42% /YEAR)

Assume atmospheric water vapor increases rapidly as air warms (tremendous positive feedback because water vapor most important greenhouse gas, more than 5 times more than C02) in actual fact. Actual observations last two decades tell us it is not the case - water vapor has not increased as modeled. If you remove it, you get a warming of 0.3C for a doubling.

We do not yet fully understand and can’t model all the solar effects nor the big changes that take place within our oceans. Models don’t duplicate the multidecadal oscillations.

The rely on approximations of many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere which are tuned to produce a credible simulation of global climate changes in the past…but there is great uncertainty among modelers whether these assumptions made are right and can produce an accurate future forecast.

MORE CO2 MEANS WARMER TEMPERATURES

Not always – it increased rapidly from 1945 to 1980, while temperatures COOLED.

SHOWED LONG RECORD OF CO2 OVER TIME…did not note that scientists like Jan Veiser from U of Ottawa have found CO2 lags the temperatures not lead or drive it by as much as 800 years…it may be rising now from the medieval warm period!

GW INCREASE IN INTENSITY AND DURATION 50%.

Not true Atl/Pac statistics show no significant frequency or intensity changes global basis. Atlantic frequency doubled since 1995. More hurricanes and US landfalls more 1900-1950s than 1950-2000

WE CAN”T IGNORE EFFORTS ANY LONGER TO REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USAGE..we need govt initiatives, industry innovation and individual action (sacrifice).

Though I am all for industry innovation and public common sense when it comes to conserving and using energy…I am not in favor of govt initiatives nor great sacrifice…

Models show if Kyoto WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED, it would reduce global temperatures by just 0.06C by 2050. Cost the average American family $2,700 /year. China, India and other emerging countries unlikely to reduce emissions. There would be a transfer of wealth from developed to emerging world economies and not do anything to reduce global temperatures. 60 Canadian scientists this last year wrote the Prime Minister to say if we know in 1995 what we know now, Kyoto would not exist and we would have conclude it was not necessary..

POLAR BEAR CARTOON IN THE MOVIE moved a lot of people. Including US Fish and Wildlife Service to add polar bears to endangered species list.

In 2002 us Geological Survey in the Arctic Refuge Coastal plain reported the polar bear population near historic highs. Biologist Mitchell Taylor of the Arctic community of Nunavit who tracks 13 of those colonies, says 11 populations are stable or thriving.

19 worldwide polar bear populations, the Fish and Wildlife action based solely on reviewing data for only one of those populations in western Hudson Bay which has declined by 259 bears in last 17 years. The decline is due to hunting….to prevent overpopulation and ironically the Canadian government is looking to increase the quota

Paul Reiter, Louis Pasteur Institute labeled the film pure mind bending propaganda.

The AP’s Seth Borensteien quoted 5 scientists praising his movie and science. He contacted over 100 he claims. 80% said they had not seen the movie and many harshly criticized it …but didn’t stop him from saying scientists give it two thumbs up.

Here is the Powerpoint Presentation he will be giving at the AMS meetings.

http://media.myfoxphilly.com/images/gw.ppt

[SnyderShrugged]

But Johnny,

That evidence cant be true! Isnt "concensus" that its "very likely" climate change is caused by man alone?

Great post that shows the leftist agenda as the drivel that real thinking people actually see through.

Kudos for your courage in posting it too. Next you will get the inevitable "head in the sand" and "the evidence is right in front of you" nonsense.

You and I both know there are huge holes in the so-called "science" of Global warming (except when its cooling)

[Midnight Judges]

LOL, first, not a GOP guy here.

.

:laugh: :wavetowel :rotflmao: oh man you are too funny. My stomach hurts.

[SnyderShrugged]

:laugh: :wavetowel :rotflmao: oh man you are too funny. My stomach hurts.

explain please? I have not been in the party since 2004. do you have some evidence to the contrary?

You sir, look rediculous when you post these things without any basis in fact. simply put....You dont know me at all, and judging by your pathetic posts, I probably wouldnt want to anyway