backtop


Print 140 comment(s) - last by tmouse.. on Jun 12 at 8:26 AM


GISS's James Hansen is among the scientists whose research were supressed due to political motivations, according to the newly released internal NASA investigation.  (Source: NASA)
A new investigation finds a consistent pattern of suppression of data by political appointees, though it fails to implicate higher ups

Those following the global warming debate here at DailyTech can likely agree on two things -- first a lot of research remains to be done before definitive conclusions can be drawn.  And secondly, many people hold very strong opinions on the topic. 

Critics of the prevalent view among the scientific community -- that anthropogenic effects have at least a mild effect on warming -- tend to take two bents in their criticism.  Sometimes they point to dissenting opinions on underlying theory presented in various studies or to studies that indicate that perhaps global warming would have beneficial effects in addition to negative ones.

Another common form of criticism is to claim that scientists critical to global warming are actively being suppressed.  These criticisms allege that a conspiratorial pattern is keeping the truth from coming out.  Somewhat ironically, a new report indicates quite the opposite.  The released results of an analysis from NASA's internal investigative office found that between 2004 and 2006 there was a concerted effort by political appointees at the NASA press office to silence the opinions and exposure of scientists who publicly supported anthropogenic global warming theory.

The report concludes that such interference may border on illegality as it is "inconsistent" with the laws that established the space program here in the U.S.  The findings were presented in a 48-page report initially requested by the U.S. Senate in 2006.   The efforts to suppress the researchers were only linked to the NASA press office.  There was no evidence found that NASA or higher Bush administration officials were involved in trying to silence the global warming supporters.

The report lauded Michael Griffin, the agency administrator for making a series of rapid and effective policy changes to put to end the problems.  Griffin acted quickly after the story first broke in the New York Times early in 2006.

Kevin H. Winters, assistant inspector general for investigations, signed off on the finished investigation.  It found that political appointees withheld or delayed news releases on global warming on what it characterizes as "sustained pattern".  Further, it found that the appointees silenced oft-maligned James E. Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA by limiting his contact with the press.

NASA rules and regulations state that it has a statutory responsibility to widely communicate findings "especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest."  The report found that instead political special interests were "inextricably interwoven" into the activities of the press office and the result was supporters of anthropogenic theory were silenced.

NASA spokesman, Michael Cabbage released a statement, commenting, "The issues mentioned in the inspector general's report are more than two years old, and after learning of those issues, NASA revised the agency's policy for disseminating science information."

The former deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the agency, Dean Acosta attacked the report which he called inaccurate.  Acosta was in charge of many of the activities mentioned in the report and thus is significantly implicated by it.  Acosta had been appointed by Bush in 2003 and resigned in 2007, not long after the reforms were put in place.

Acosta angrily remarks, "My entire career has been dedicated to open and honest communications.  The inspector general's assertions are patently false. The report itself does nothing but raise questions about a three-year investigation that has yielded nothing but flimsy allegations aimed at hard-working public servants."

Since his departure with NASA, Acosta has enjoyed a relatively successful private sector career, working as the director of communications for the Boeing space-exploration business.

Despite Acosta's claims of innocence, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D, NJ) who initially requested the report was not convinced.  He stated, "Global warming is the most serious environmental threat we face, but this report is more evidence that the Bush administration's appointees have put political ideology ahead of science.  Our government's response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush administration's manipulation of that information violates the public trust."

While supporters of anthropogenic global warming theory will likely be outraged by the indictments of conspiracy in the new report, global warming critics should be equally outraged.  By using bully tactics and suppression, the NASA press office cast a cloud of doubt which will significantly hamper global warming critics' legitimate attempts to mount facts-based attacks on Dr. Hansen's and other global warming scientists' theories. 

As most would agree, when it comes to global warming or other matters of science, it is best just collect as much information as possible, come up with a variety of possible theories and explanations and let the facts and data speak for themselves.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

For a better view of the real situation:
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 11:58:31 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years. Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose.

But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville. There were no hard feelings, and I'm still active in a NASA satellite mission and fully supportive of its Earth observation programs. In stark contrast,

Jim Hansen said whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to the press and congress during that time. He even campaigned for John Kerry, and received a $250,000 award from Theresa Heinz-Kerry's charitable foundation -- two events he maintains are unrelated. If I had done anything like this when I worked at NASA, I would have been crucified under the Hatch Act. Does anyone besides me see a double standard here?

-Roy W. Spencer
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-glo...




RE: For a better view of the real situation:
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 12:09:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Further, it found that the appointees silenced oft-maligned James E. Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA by limiting his contact with the press.
As the above post states, Hansen spends a majority of his paid time in office granting press interviews - some 1,400 such interviews in the last decade, and over 30 (more than one a day) in the very same month he claimed he was being "silenced".


RE: For a better view of the real situation:
By Rhaido on 6/4/2008 2:22:19 PM , Rating: 3
Mike, GW related link in case you haven't seen this before:

http://petitionproject.org/

Sorry this is off blog topic.
Where is a list of email addresses for DT contributors?


By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 2:29:18 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks, I've seen the petition before...it's a shame the mainstream media so steadfastly refuses to cover it.

You can contact any of the DT staffers and contributors by clicking the link next to our names, which should open up an email contact form.


RE: For a better view of the real situation:
By lifeblood on 6/4/2008 3:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Make sure you actually read and understand what the petition says and what the scientists believe. Most of the scientists who signed this petition believe Global Warming is occurring, what they are arguing is that it is a natural process and not influenced by anthropogenic factors. They are concerned that spending money on stopping a totally natural process is a waste of time. The big argument in science is not whether global waring exists, it does, the point is whether we are influencing or accelerating it.


RE: For a better view of the real situation:
By Andy35W on 6/5/2008 2:02:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The big argument in science is not whether global waring exists, it does, the point is whether we are influencing or accelerating it.


What's the favourite current natural theory for it's cause?

Cosmic rays seem to have been debunked and other theories do not get as much publicity as that did. Thanks.


By nstott on 6/5/2008 4:17:24 AM , Rating: 4
RE: For a better view of the real situation:
By theflux on 6/4/2008 5:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
Masher, as always, your contributions to these posts are much appreciated.

I have to say I'm still disappointed you didn't live up to your word about making your concession post one year after it proved that neither dual format player or HD DVD was the future.


RE: For a better view of the real situation:
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 6:08:53 PM , Rating: 3
I'm still within the deadline...Toshiba didn't officially announce defeat until February, and it manufactured players all the way up to the end of March. :)

Actually, I'm trying to combine my concessionary post with something newsworthy about BD. I don't mind eating a bit of crow, but it needs to be somewhat interesting to the readership when served up.


RE: For a better view of the real situation:
By theflux on 6/5/2008 3:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
Ok fair enough :D

And don't worry about the concession speech. This post was good enough.


By maverick85wd on 6/5/2008 1:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
I got in a few arguments with him about it so I would definitely like to read such an article... that he plans on putting some BD news in it is icing on the cake.


Welll.....
By tmouse on 6/4/2008 10:15:43 AM , Rating: 4
From the perspective of someone in science I’m not sure what to make of this report. Some are making references to political suppression effects on science, that may or may not be true but it has absolutely nothing to do with this report. Press releases do not in any way shape or form effect science. As a matter of fact I usually cringe when I have read some of the biological press releases and compare them to the actual work. Now if the report implicated a curbing of Dr. Hansen's ability to publish then that would be another matter. I'm sorry but press releases from government agencies should not read like the headlines of the National Enquirer. Dr. Hansen is famous (infamous) for slathering his releases with "headline ripping" superlatives that he could never get away with in his professional publications. Now I do not doubt his intelligence or expertise but I know ALOT of researchers who should never be allowed to speak in public. What I would like to know is not: “NASA press office mutes his press releases” BUT whether there is a CONSISTANT MUTING of EVERYTHING relating to anthropogenic effects AND a CONSISTANT PROMOTION of the other view. That should not happen. Toning down loose cannon is not the same as keeping a professional albeit some dull agency persona with the public. I have not seen NASA reports hugely pushing the opposite views so I do not think there is ANY "conspiracy". The report could be absolutely correct in its findings that he was kept from giving “any press releases when ever he felt like” and muting some of his exaggerated terminology, but without the other component (hyping the other view) this is not necessarily counter to their mission to inform the public. You can talk about global warming without using terms like “timebomb” and “immediate devastation”.




RE: Welll.....
By Polynikes on 6/4/2008 11:23:51 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly.


RE: Welll.....
By lifeblood on 6/4/2008 1:01:35 PM , Rating: 4
The problem is that science is being suppressed for political reasons. Politicians love to take science and twist it for their own agenda's. Gore is screaming Doomsday while Bush has his head buried in the sand. The first victim of politics is the truth. The last people who should be listened to are politicians or their political appointees.

The suppression of information is in addition to preventing any research that disagrees with the current administrations desires. As much as Masher likes to point out the money spent on science has gone up since Clinton, he repeatably ignores the fact that the money is going to military research and limited high profile projects like manned space flight. Research into oceanography and other such subjects are being funded far below Clinton era levels. Research that has the potential to disagree with their stance simply is not allowed. This allows them to claim "their is not enough scientific certainty to allow us to act".

Tricks like this are common among politicians of both parties. We had a governor who promised to increase funding of the states equivalent of the EPA to crack down on polluters. He did just what he promised while also mandating the number of investigators be reduced. So the agency had more money but less investigators to go out and collect evidence, etc.


RE: Welll.....
By tmouse on 6/12/2008 8:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
It’s a little late but I have been getting my own grant in. There has been NO suppression in this case that is simply tin foil hat thinking. He has given hundreds of press conferences; his views are well known NOTHING repeat NOTHING has been suppressed. What has been done is requiring him to get approval before spouting off, he represents NASA; every university I have been associated with has similar policies. There is no suppression; part of their job is to prep people and make sure the scientist is not being set up to be misquoted (which happens ALOT). There are many who sport "press credentials" sometimes you can get them just by asking and having a web site. These departments are supposed to act as a buffer, it’s their job. The report does not state a single example of a view being repressed. His main complaint is he cannot say anything he wants in official press releases (not content but adjectively), this is not the same as suppression, no facts are being silenced.


Silencing not working and mostly irrelevant
By CatfishKhan on 6/4/2008 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 3
The silencing isn't working. The number of news stories covering Hansen has gone from less than 3000 in 1996 to over 9000 in 2007. See http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/na...

It also isn't new. It happened during Clinton/Gore in the other direction. See http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-glo...

But in the age of the internet, silencing generally doesn't work for people willing to do the legwork and find out the information for themselves. Who cares what Hansen or anybody else thinks when you can look at the data for yourself? See http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/ua...




RE: Silencing not working and mostly irrelevant
By lifeblood on 6/4/2008 6:42:36 PM , Rating: 1
2006, when he was mentioned in only 3000 news stories was one of the years he was being "silenced" (2004-2006). So the fact that he was mentioned in more articles in 2007 can be construed as proving he was previously being suppressed. Although it could also mean he was just talking more in 2007.


RE: Silencing not working and mostly irrelevant
By borismkv on 6/4/2008 7:58:40 PM , Rating: 3
*WHAP!* Pay attention. 3000 articles 1996, not 2006.


RE: Silencing not working and mostly irrelevant
By lifeblood on 6/4/2008 8:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ouch! Ok, I deserved that one. Please scratch my above comments from the record and the jury will disregard my comments.


By CatfishKhan on 6/5/2008 10:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the graph is more supportive of the silencing theory than I originally realized... the only year over year drop in that chart is from 2003 to 2004 -- the start of the claims of silencing. Then there is a huge jump from 2006 to 2007, which marks the end of the alleged silencing period.


Mark Twain said it best...
By DtTall on 6/4/2008 9:37:10 AM , Rating: 4
I love the last line in the article,

quote:
...and let the facts and data speak for themselves

But I love Mark Twain even more:

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."




RE: Mark Twain said it best...
By Screwballl on 6/4/2008 10:38:41 AM , Rating: 3
agreed....
The facts are not available as we do not have long term (multi-million year) data sets to base any conclusive evidence to go either way.
There are cover ups on both sides of the issue but really this is a non-issue at best so no need to cover anything up.

What we need is a law that states "an idea, printed or electronic information or verbal report cannot be stated as a fact without stating legitimate sources and long term data to support the final conclusion" . This used to be what the scientific community was based on before it got politicized.


By ZeroOne on 6/4/2008 10:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
to whom should we troust ?
To an politicians or scientists ?
Wel I know to whom do you?
ZeroOne




By walk2k on 6/4/2008 1:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. On one side you have concerned scientists trying to figure out if we are damaging the earth's climate.

On the other you have megacorps and the politicians they have wrapped around their fingers trying to protect their massive profits.

Hmm gee, tough decision there /sarcasm.


By Suntan on 6/4/2008 1:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
If you’ve never seen the narcissism that can drive a “scientist” to prove that their theory is correct, then it would understandable that you would think this way.

Not saying all “scientists” are corrupt, but to say that they are all completely impartial is not correct either.

Or put another way, you don’t get handed a bunch of research funding to “just go on out and see what you come up with.”

-Suntan


I thought the main argument was...
By SilthDraeth on 6/4/2008 10:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
The earth has gone through dozens if not hundreds of cooling and warming cycles long before man started burning petroleum in such high numbers.




RE: I thought the main argument was...
By Staples on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
By borismkv on 6/4/2008 8:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ancient history is filled with evidence of mass extinctions related to incredibly fast climate changes. Ice ages have come and gone in the history of the earth without any interference from man.

Seriously, I don't think the "science" being done by the IPCC is very scientific. Not one of the scientists who contributes to the IPCC actually goes out and collects independent data. They generate computer models based on hand picked data sets collected from the efforts of government organizations like NOAA. For those who've never had any dealings with NOAA, it's one of the most horribly mis-managed government funded organizations in the country. They have no oversight, and no real reason to strive for accuracy. The calculations used to predict the effects of carbon dioxide are almost a century old.

There has been no rigorous peer review of this data, either. So many scientists today just look at something that is happening and then tell everyone what they think the cause is, like being a scientist automatically means they're right. I'm sorry. There is very little actual science being done to determine the effects of carbon emissions on a global scale. Every statistic I hear about it, I just can't help but think, "Where are you collecting that data?" for example, "Are you collecting carbon levels from downtown LA, or the rainforests of Alaska and South America?"

It's just hilarious how so many people who say that we are supposed to question authority are so quick to just kowtow to the scientific community because they have degrees.


Hands down, the most AMAZING thing about all of this
By Fnoob on 6/4/2008 8:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
is how many 'experts' there are in this field suddenly....

How can a layman, with any sense of reality, ardently support one side or the other? It amazes me how many millions of people accept (and defend!)as gospel something they know nothing about.




By mikeyjk on 6/5/2008 4:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy. GW is an article of faith for some people. Al Gore declares the debate to be over and therefore it is not necessary to address the doubts of non-believers. It's no coincidence that the GW theory fits so neatly with environmentalist ideology. If GW did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.


By uhgotnegum on 6/4/2008 9:36:52 AM , Rating: 3
I think we can add one more thing to the top of this article...

Third, the politics of politics has taken hold of this issue (or non issue, as the case may be)and now, nobody can ever believe anything reported on this (non)issue ever again.

True?




Hilarious
By smitty3268 on 6/4/2008 11:31:32 AM , Rating: 3
I find it funny how so many GW critics just find it impossible to believe something wrong may have happened here. They can't even accept that there may have been a few rouges on their side trying to keep people quiet, it must be that there was a gigantic left-wing conspiracy designed to make them look bad and push global warming on the unsuspecting public. LOL




This guy again?
By mikefarinha on 6/4/2008 10:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
Hasn't this guy been screaming about being repressed by the White House for well over a year now?




surprised? no.
By chromal on 6/4/2008 11:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
This is par for course with regards to science policy and the Bush administration. It's like the reverse-Midas effect: everything they touch turns to sh$t.




proven fact:
By nathanielpr on 6/4/2008 12:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
an idling car in a closed garage is a great way to commit suicide.




Hmm...
By rubbahbandman on 6/4/2008 1:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
So James Hansen was silenced, yet his opinions seem to have no trouble getting heard? It's obvious to me which party truly is getting silenced and that is the non-trendy voices saying "wait, let's go over this data and see if what you're saying really is true."

Overwhelmingly all the global warming data has been proven false, but that news is always buried for some inexplicable reason. In fact the media makes it appear that only men who cling to their guns and their religion deny global warming when in reality a much broader - but silenced - base disagrees.

If anyone wants to make a case about man-made climate change, let's talk about the widespread deforestation going on in the world. All the man-made co2 in the world doesn't compare to the effects of removing millions of acres of forest every year.




By Regs on 6/4/2008 1:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
We are at the mercy of our solar system and mother Earth everyday. Global Warming? Like others said, Earth has had cooling and warming trends through-out its long history.

The earth has faced an ice age, hurricanes, earth quakes, plate shifts, asteroids, volcano's... do you really think us humans could make any more of a impact?

This whole "save the Earth" movement is nothing but bull. The Earth is not going anywhere, we are. Whether it be from disease, aliens, asteroids, climate change, or any other dramatic change in our ecosystem. The Earth will remain and long after we're gone, new life forms will begin to appear yet again.




Supression in Canada is Worse
By GTVic on 6/4/2008 4:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
In Canada, government funded scientists are not allowed to speak directly to the media.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html...




By thestain on 6/4/2008 4:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
I was reading a while ago that changes on the Sun had far greater impact on the global temps here on earth, and that we might be going into a cooling cycle as far as the Sun is concerned that could last sixty plus years.

Can a finite heat source continue to provide us with all the warmth we need?




By thestain on 6/4/2008 4:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
I was reading a while ago that changes on the Sun had far greater impact on the global temps here on earth, and that we might be going into a cooling cycle as far as the Sun is concerned that could last sixty plus years.

Can a finite heat source continue to provide us with all the warmth we need?




Hurray for propaganda!
By borismkv on 6/4/2008 8:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
Mick strikes again.




Who would you believe?
By eegake on 6/4/2008 8:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not the drastic increase in the rate of warming over the last century or so is natural, man made, or some combination thereof, the one thing you can be sure of is that the opponents of theories of man made warming are by and large the same sort of tired reactionaries protecting vested interests that have opposed change in every generation.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/conservative-s...




James Hansen = Agent Smith
By nstott on 6/4/2008 8:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh the irony: put the same sunglasses on James Hansen and he looks a lot like Agent Smith in the two pictures at the top! :D




Confused?
By jhb116 on 6/4/2008 9:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
Is this writer a Democrat or Global Warming zealot? Early in the article he writes that people opposed ("critical") to the human impacts on global warming yet if you click on the hyperlink for that text it takes you to an article that is critical of Hansen. The Democrats have been on a very long coordinated campaign to portray Bush as a dictator who lies to the public. Yes, Bush's actions play right into this portrayal, however, I'd argue that he has been as truthful with the public as the last administration.

If you read the article carefully - a Democrat called for this investigation.. Any politically party member calling for an investigation is hardly independent is not likely to come up with an opinion opposed to that party's line. In this case - the Democrats are waging a total war to gain control of Congress and the White House and it appears this "independent investigation" is another piece of their war.

In this case - it appears that Hansen is hell bent on proving Global Warming is the fault of Humanity. In this case - NASA has ever right to put a muzzle on him - which it appears they were not effect at doing anyhow - a warning that someone is violating policy tells me that that person is not following the rules - in this case going directly to the press with panic type language. The mission of NASA is to do air and space research and make that publicly available - ALL of the data. It appears that Hansen pushed an extremist opinion and failed to put data that supports opposing viewpoints.

Its funny - 30-50 years ago we thought we would die as a race from Global Nuclear War. It now seems more likely that we will die off as a race because extremists on both sides refused to put a consolidated set of information together with no opinions - do a thorough review and make some recommendations what to do to either lower any negative impacts or collect more data to fill in holes in our knowledge base....




This cuts two ways
By mikeyjk on 6/5/2008 4:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
The charge of altering data to suit political purposes cuts two ways. After the publication of Michael Chrichton's much maligned book State of Fear, data cited to question the global warming theory was removed from NASA's website.




...
By Goty on 6/4/2008 10:43:39 AM , Rating: 1
I love how people who conduct these kinds of investigations tend to be dead-set on the idea that global warming is this huge threat to the human race, when there is significant evidence to the contrary that holds up much better under scientific scrutiny.

For example...,

http://www.dailytech.com/Researchers+Global+Warmin...
http://www.dailytech.com/UN+Global+Temperatures+Wi...
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou...

... and that's just with a 15-second search of DailyTech!




By phxfreddy on 6/4/2008 9:55:56 PM , Rating: 1
Look...for anyone with 1/10th a nose for bullshit its really really REALLY easy to see MMGW is a tax money pump pure and simple. I mean dang...get a clue.

and yah duh the great big fireball in the sky is variable. Your belief that it is some constant force is a residual form of sun worshipping. As any engineer would quickly conclude earths climate is remarkably stable considering its a ball situated in a vacuum orbiting a variable output nuclear fusion reactor.

Its not a scientific issue. Its not being suppressed. Its being suppressed as much as the alien autopsies. But if you believe in the autopsies then you are hopeless anyway. Here is your tin foil hat.

I can not believe you guys even put this stuff in here. Its like caring who outed Valerie Plame....the never was secret agent. Must be some rabid bush haters on staff




blog post
By SandmanWN on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: blog post
By Amiga500 on 6/4/2008 9:29:23 AM , Rating: 5
Its pretty damn obvious why this is in the Science section of the site!

Manipulation in the presentation of scientific data is a serious problem.

Decisions and opinions are only as good as the information they are based on - withhold information, and you cannot expect a good decision to follow.


RE: blog post
By SandmanWN on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: blog post
By SandmanWN on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: blog post
By Amiga500 on 6/4/2008 9:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
NASA screwed the numbers up themselves. It was a loon in NASA that manipulated the numbers.

Did you even bother to actually read and understand his "blog" post?

It specifically mentions the problem was "NASA" officials that were external appointments.


RE: blog post
By SandmanWN on 6/4/2008 9:37:46 AM , Rating: 2
So, because NASA appointed these people and promoted their research and it turned out wrong its ok because they were only contracted?


RE: blog post
By Amiga500 on 6/4/2008 9:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
Again, read his blog post. Or is it beyond your comprehension?

NASA only release data (be it technical reports, technical notes, technical memorandums or contractor reports or whatever) after it has been cleared for release. If the press office doesn't certify certain* documents for public release, then simply put, there is extreme manipulation in the presentation of scientific data.

*certain being documents that disagree with the press officers point of view, or the point of view they've been told to take.


RE: blog post
By SandmanWN on 6/4/2008 9:50:19 AM , Rating: 1
They posted erroneous info that showed a major temperature hike and that wasn't stopped by the big bad government. Now you want us to believe they are somehow being berated by the government now? Hell, they should be after the last screw up. But its more likely the whole story is bogus.


RE: blog post
By Starcub on 6/5/2008 11:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
But its more likely the whole story is bogus.

No it is't bogus, I personally saw his testimony before congress about a year ago. Dr Hansen/NASA wasn't the only government scientist concerned about political bias. There were at least 3 other science representatives testifying against similar political activity.


RE: blog post
By Lightning III on 6/4/2008 11:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
no becauise Bush appointed a pr flack to make those decisions


RE: blog post
By SandmanWN on 6/4/2008 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
you're not supposed to drink the bong water


RE: blog post
By Lightning III on 6/4/2008 1:57:12 PM , Rating: 1
well

used suppositories aren't breath mint's

but you still eat them


RE: blog post
By SandmanWN on 6/4/2008 2:06:42 PM , Rating: 1
you speaking from first hand experience?


RE: blog post
By Topweasel on 6/4/2008 9:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
Where did you read that the information wasn't trust worthy. Even if They didn't make a big deal about every GW supported report that came out, maybe even delayed the reports release, all of these reports are from researches doing their own work, outside agenda a pro-GW and an Anti-GW report are going t be equally accurate.


RE: blog post
By Amiga500 on 6/4/2008 9:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
I was careful in my wording for this exact reason.

I said:

Manipulation in the presentation of scientific data is a serious problem.


RE: blog post
By eegake on 6/4/2008 8:45:48 PM , Rating: 1
What do you expect?

For goodness sakes, this is Daily Tech, the National Enquirer of science and technology reporting. An operation this marginal is easily bought and sold by vested interests. Ask who is paying for this coverage and you will be much closer to understanding DT's business model.


RE: blog post
By Starcub on 6/5/2008 11:21:01 AM , Rating: 1
And when did it become global "warming" again? Thought that had long disseminated to climate change when last year was the coolest year in a decade???

I think there was some concern that accelerated warming might cause temperature instability. However, the data concerning warming were projected over the past 100 years. Given that anyone can see from the graphs of actual climate temp data that climate temps vary from year to year, I'd say that the change in terminology was entirely political. Perhaps this too is part of an 'AGW coverup' -- a coverup on what I suspect is a red herring issue anyway.


God will this ever end.
By Topweasel on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: God will this ever end.
By DOCDAT1 on 6/4/2008 9:38:12 AM , Rating: 1
"Global warming is over" and we need to worry about global cooling? Says who?

Are you talking about the isolated cooling trend this year because of la nina?


RE: God will this ever end.
By SandmanWN on 6/4/2008 9:45:02 AM , Rating: 5
If a localized event off the coast of Mexico can alter the entire global climate and erase a 10 year temperature rise when no one saw that coming... who are we to say anything about global warming, climate change, or global cooling?


RE: God will this ever end.
By hubajube on 6/4/2008 10:09:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a localized event off the coast of Mexico can alter the entire global climate and erase a 10 year temperature rise when no one saw that coming... who are we to say anything about global warming, climate change, or global cooling?
Ding! Ding! Ding! "I need more cowbell!"


RE: God will this ever end.
By maverick85wd on 6/4/2008 2:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've got a fever. And the only cure... is more cowbell.


I honestly doubt our emissions are enough to change global weather patterns. The changes we have been seeing lately are more than likely the natural cycle of things. What I'm worried about is pollution, over-population, and how un-healthy food is becoming as it becomes more chemicals than actual food-stuffs. But, I guess if politicans are willing to pour huge dollars into researching something we obviously still don't fully understand I guess that's their call... I just wish they would spend it on something more useful.


RE: God will this ever end.
By DOCDAT1 on 6/5/2008 11:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
Localized in time, NOT place! IE the average temp in a year with La Nina is an outlier when you look at the temperature trend. Same goes for el Nino if that makes you happy.

I apologize that english isn't my main language and that I was thinking that everyone knows La Nina is a global phenomenon...


RE: God will this ever end.
By Topweasel on 6/4/2008 9:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
First Time I have ever hit -1. But just to ask a question, if this global cooling is an isolated trend caused by el nina, can't the same be responsible for the dramatic rise in temp after el nino (2000).

I still am in belief that the increased sun spot activity (started in late 80's, the one that was a big issue during the ozone scare) was responsible for the rise in temp. Just as I believe that the dramatic loss in temp this year is due to absence of that sunspot activity almost completely.


RE: God will this ever end.
By BernardP on 6/4/2008 10:22:24 AM , Rating: 2
There are many credible scientists who favor the hypothesis that solar activity, not carbon dioxide, is the main global temperature driver. Just a couple of things to chew on:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/li...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/ua...

Despite the global media and political hysteria, recent facts are beginning to look bad for the "warmers".


RE: God will this ever end.
By rupaniii on 6/4/2008 11:12:39 AM , Rating: 1
So, follow me here.
If you have the following, what happens?
A large metallic Dyanamo which began spinning at the beginning of time and gathered materials around it and gave them motion due to it's spin. Due to materials and distances, that dynamo ended up with several layers of various materials, the last of which is a thin layer of 'surface' which we might call a planet crust.
Take an established notion that such crust is 'broken' into several many plates which CAN act on one another in various bumping and or sliding motions an consider that.
Now, cause a massive weight delta on this thin surface where it's mass begins to become, say, bottom heavy, with the redistribution of a considerable portion of it's formerly 'like in size' top mass around it's globe. Ignoring conventional wisdom, take a few minutes to think about that.
If said mass is capable for some reason of redistributing itself globally during given certain conditions , you would end up with something LESS than that mass causing a 90' flux in the orientation of the mass to the axis.
This is not doomsday talk!. What, did i say Earth? Or a Planet? Assumptions are dangerous... such as assuming we know how everything works...
Say what you want about it, but there's intriguing evidence this likely happened on the Martian surface, that it's Crust used to be oriented differently.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070613_mars_...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7547963/


RE: God will this ever end.
By jimbojimbo on 6/4/2008 2:19:42 PM , Rating: 1
In the 70s the great threat was global cooling. Now the great threast is global warming. The earth's temperatures fluctuate from the average every once in a while and when it does people think it's going to swing all the way and we're all going to die. Then it'll swing back to normal and then the other way and poeple jump on that bandwagon and think we're all going to die again. It's quite silly.


Con Artists
By Ripvanwinkle on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Con Artists
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/4/2008 10:20:28 AM , Rating: 3
I'm staying out of the main debate but as far as this:
quote:
In 5 years the Mexican economy will be larger than the US. Suckers!


Umm... as of 2007 the U.S GDP is estimated to be $13.794 trillion
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)

The Mexican GDP for 2007 is estimated to be $1.346 trillion.

Given that Mexico's projected growth yearly for GDP is about 2.5-4%, barring a full collapse of the U.S. economy your statement is entirely ridiculous.

In fact, Mexico actually dropped a spot in the world GPD list from #11 to #12 in 2007.


I'm tired
By FITCamaro on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm tired
By mdogs444 on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm tired
By BMFPitt on 6/4/2008 10:21:33 AM , Rating: 5
Couldn't find a way to work PETA, illegal immigrants, and taking your guns away into that?


RE: I'm tired
By mdogs444 on 6/4/2008 10:22:50 AM , Rating: 4
That falls under socialism. Thanks for the additions. Although, you could have also added Greenpeace & Code Pink to that.


RE: I'm tired
By BMFPitt on 6/4/2008 10:30:41 AM , Rating: 2
So who's in charge of this conspiracy, anyway? The terrorists, the Illuminati, or the aliens?


RE: I'm tired
By mdogs444 on 6/4/2008 10:32:48 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm good question. Under which of those 3 do the far left Democrats and Al Gore fall under?


RE: I'm tired
By mikefarinha on 6/4/2008 11:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So who's in charge of this conspiracy, anyway? The terrorists, the Illuminati, or the aliens?

quote:
Hmm good question. Under which of those 3 do the far left Democrats and Al Gore fall under?


All three I believe.


RE: I'm tired
By mikefarinha on 6/4/2008 1:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
wow, tough crowd!


RE: I'm tired
By werepossum on 6/4/2008 12:27:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So who's in charge of this conspiracy, anyway? The terrorists, the Illuminati, or the aliens?


Obviously the Illuminati's alien terrorists.

Duh.


RE: I'm tired
By abzillah on 6/4/2008 1:12:08 PM , Rating: 1
As a biologist myself, I am not convinced of the cause of global warming, because the data for global warming can be interpreted in multiple ways. Not very many scientists are actually doing research on this field, but are doing research on cells, proteins, and genes for medical breakthroughs. We should just drop all this conspiracy theory, and understand that we humans have positive and negative affects on our environment. Some of the best things we can do are; recycle recyclable materials, not trash our environment but throw our trash in a garbage can and not be wasteful of resources. I believe these three thins will have a more positive affect on Earth than becoming vegetarians, or taking public transportation or anything else that is not sensible. Just be a good citizen of Earth.


RE: I'm tired
By fxyefx on 6/4/2008 1:44:20 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see how becoming vegetarians or taking public transportation is not sensible. Granted, I probably drive my car more than I need to, and I do eat meat. Habits are hard to change; it is difficult to always be sensible. ^.^


RE: I'm tired
By Denigrate on 6/4/2008 2:09:40 PM , Rating: 4
Human's are predators(omnivores like bears), and will alway crave meat along with veg, grains, and fruit. Anyone who thinks they get full nutrition from grains/veg/fruit are only kidding themselves.

If you want to help out the earth, grow your own veg in your backyard. I do, and I'm no tree hugger, though I am in favor of a cleaner planet.


RE: I'm tired
By geddarkstorm on 6/4/2008 2:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
That, and home grown usually tastes quite a bit better :D


RE: I'm tired
By fxyefx on 6/4/2008 3:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
Really? What nutrition do we get from meat that we can't get from a vegetarian diet? I'm not trying to rebut your point - I really just didn't know that! o.O


RE: I'm tired
By Eris23007 on 6/4/2008 4:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
There are certain amino acids present in meats & dairy products that are not available from a purely vegetarian source. Vegetarian isn't so bad if you still consume dairy products e.g. milk, cheese, whey, etc., as they contain most of the important ones, but Vegan, contrary to the statements of the "Skinny Bitch" writers, is quite unhealthy.


RE: I'm tired
By AlmostExAMD on 6/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'm tired
By DASQ on 6/5/2008 12:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
You might as well have just posted "durrrrrr" or some other guttural noise, because it would've made just as much sense.

You think a human body can survive for any significant period of time on pure calories? You think those 'vitamin' things that you keep hearing about in them fandangled moving picture box is just a load of modern health hippie crap?


RE: I'm tired
By eye smite on 6/4/2008 2:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget increasing the price of stamps at the post office again.


RE: I'm tired
By BMFPitt on 6/4/2008 10:17:47 AM , Rating: 5
So the findings of scientists that disagree with you are suppressed, and you completely avoid the topic, noting that they were wrong anyway.

If the findings of scientists that agree with you aren't front page news, you claim a massive conspiracy against science. (See just abot any MAsher thread for examples.)

How about at least pretending to be consistent?


RE: I'm tired
By Lightning III on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm tired
By just4U on 6/4/2008 1:52:52 PM , Rating: 1
Might as well throw me in there to. Michael Asher's articles are excellent. I look forward to reading the stuff he diggs up and the debate that follows.

From what I can gather about them, he's not asking anyone to believe anything but rather to keep an open mind. His articles don't tend to "SPIN" you into a corner either.


RE: I'm tired
By BladeVenom on 6/4/2008 2:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an interesting article about NASA's "data." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_...


RE: I'm tired
By just4U on 6/4/2008 2:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
From what I gather by that article, they are saying that Nasa is changing the numbers on temperatures thru the years to give the appearance that Global warming is really happening? Did I read that wrong?


RE: I'm tired
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 11:45:47 AM , Rating: 1
I'm saying the findings are based off too little data to matter.

Whether or not they were "repressed" isn't the issue to me.


RE: I'm tired
By BMFPitt on 6/4/2008 12:23:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Whether or not they were "repressed" isn't the issue to me.
I very much have a problem with non-scientists censoring the work of actual scientists. Nothing worries me more about the future of our country than the current belief that science is a popularity contest.


RE: I'm tired
By lightfoot on 6/4/2008 12:42:50 PM , Rating: 3
Presumably since the investigation has been completed this problem has been solved. All supressed NASA climate science has now been released to the public. Unfortunately there was no "smoking gun" in all that supressed science, and it has hardly cleared up the debate.

The fact remains that the science of global climate change is hardly conclusive, yet it is being used as an excuse to change social policy and divert funding from proven issues and disasters.


RE: I'm tired
By BMFPitt on 6/4/2008 1:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Presumably since the investigation has been completed this problem has been solved. All supressed NASA climate science has now been released to the public. Unfortunately there was no "smoking gun" in all that supressed science, and it has hardly cleared up the debate.
No one has claimed there was any smoking gun, nor any overwhelming new evidence. That doesn't excuse the actions taken.

If anything, this hurts the cause of "nothing to see here" because the fact that they tried to create a coverup implies that there is something to cover up.

I would like all the political hacks and sensationalists to shut the hell up and let the scientists sort it out. Not that I think there's any chance of that.


RE: I'm tired
By derwin on 6/5/2008 4:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would like all the political hacks and sensationalists to shut the hell up and let the scientists sort it out. Not that I think there's any chance of that.


AMEN


RE: I'm tired
By onwisconsin on 6/4/2008 10:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
Buy a lottery ticket...fast...but I see what you mean. You have to add Al Gore to the list, because by having a mansion and eating red meat (because of the existive resources to maintain and feed cows) and being an "environmentalist" is VERY hypocritcal (then again he is a politician ;))

:)


RE: I'm tired
By Lightning III on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm tired
By FITCamaro on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'm tired
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2008 12:06:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And when the man who founded the f*cking Weather Channel tells me that man-made global warming isn't happening, I tend to listen to him. Especially when he has no financial gain for saying it. You can't say the same for all the scientists getting millions of dollars in government grants to research global warming. If they said it wasn't, would they get any more money? The answer is no.


Just like Cancer or AIDS research. Aids is relatively new compared to Cancer. But I feel at this point its pretty clear government sponsored Cancer research that despite the billions and billions of dollars and years invested, is no closer now to finding a cure than they were. Because if they did, well, then what would they do ?

Every single breakthrough about Cancer research, at least the ones on DT I have read, have come from the PRIVATE sector.


RE: I'm tired
By BMFPitt on 6/4/2008 12:40:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Every single breakthrough about Cancer research, at least the ones on DT I have read, have come from the PRIVATE sector.
And around 100% of them had at least some part of their funding from the public sector. Who do you think those billions go to, some invisible research facility staffed by federal employees?


RE: I'm tired
By math is fun on 6/5/2008 4:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
um, you should really make an effort to understand how government funded science works. government money allocated for research in a particular area is allocated to the appropriate agency. the NIH for cancer and aids research and the NSF most likely for climate change research. individual research groups then apply for grants from those agencies. the grants are reviewed by groups of scientists in the same field who are in many cases the competitors to those who wrote grant. the vast majority of these grants go research groups at universities because that is where most researchers are. most of the work done at universities is basic science to identify processes at work in a particular field (mechanisms causing cancer for example). when discoveries are made with commercial applications the results are published in a peer review journal where any scientist can see it. using that discovery to make money (e.g. taking the raw discovery and making it into a drug) is then undertaken by a privately funded organization because there is immediate money to be made at this stage of the process (and thus no need for public funding). there are very few private companies (in the US) engaged in basic science research because it is extremely difficult to predict where the next big breakthrough will come from and it is such a long process to a marketable product. nonetheless nearly all major advancements in science have come from such research and many were incidental to the actual problem being studied.

as far as your cancer research example goes, there will never be a cure for cancer because cancer is not a single disease. cancer is the blanket term for numerous different types of pathological cell growth. there will never be an inoculation against cancer as we have for polio. many types of cancer are actually caused by environmental factors such as smoking. there have been numerous advances the treatment of cancer however.

the suggestion that scientists get some monetary benefit from not curing cancer is silly. cancer research is closely related to many other open fields in biology and cancer researchers can often apply their research to those fields as well. their jobs will not disappear if they can't work on cancer. also, scientists engaging in publicly funded research are paid less than half the average pay of people with the same education and skill level in the private sector. if they just wanted to make money they could make a lot more by leaving science or just going to work for a pharmaceutical company.

let me know if you have any questions about the finer details of the scientific process.


RE: I'm tired
By BMFPitt on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm tired
By sinful on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm tired
By dever on 6/4/2008 3:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
The tree-hugger's aren't paying. They just lobby to confiscate the salaries of honest individuals who work too hard to notice. Corporations lobby as well to protect their interests.

Both the confiscations and the protections should be eliminated... they both take away from the individuals who don't have time to lobby... in the first instance, by taking money directly, and the second by reducing competition resulting in the higher prices of goods.


RE: I'm tired
By Lightning III on 6/4/2008 1:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
Please asherite don't pretend you don't know your gloriuos leader

don't keep speaking your hearesy or I will report you

as for the dust bowl check the figures the ogalla aqufer is drying up thats when the dust bowl will return

and as for the founder of the weather channel

I'm sure he has a couple of cray supercomputers in his basement with the best global climate model on earth and he's just not willing to share.

Sorry about the tornado crack but somtimes people need to make personal obsevation's about the world outside their air conditioned homes


RE: I'm tired
By just4U on 6/4/2008 2:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's interesting that the more sensible people on these boards are being labeled as Asherite's and part of some cult while many Activist's (and those who support their claims) come across as rabid dogs and fear mongerers are not called into question.


RE: I'm tired
By geddarkstorm on 6/4/2008 2:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously we know all the factors that go into climate. Obviously the climate runs like a nice theorem, with clear variables and discrete results. Wait.. why is the weather man wrong over the majority of the time? Oh yes, because the world doesn't run on computer models; because computer models can only be based off of incomplete, best guess observations; because computers only deal with discrete data and having to throw in analogue like continuums take them through a loop.

Super computers cannot even fold basic 100 amino acid proteins reliably, and there you have a far, Far simpler system than climate, based almost purely on energetics and electrostatic interactions. So pray tell, how can you even begin to pretend that we can predict climate with a computer? We can't do it on a daily basis, we sure as heck can't do it 20 years down the road. Approximations and guesses are helpful, toying with parameters within a framework is fun, but in the end, reality will do what it darn well pleases no matter what our computers say. There's more than just CO2 that affects climate

Also, as long as we don't turn our lands into desert by pillaging the land with terrible agricultural practices, stripping out all tree and brush, the dust bowl will not happen again.


RE: I'm tired
By mezman on 6/4/2008 3:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you aren't ee cummings, use some frickin' punctuation and capitalization.


RE: I'm tired
By werepossum on 6/4/2008 12:36:31 PM , Rating: 1
Not to mention what global warming is doing to our spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

One flaw in the study - it considered Hansen a scientist. Hansen is an activist. His busy press schedule and campaigning obviously leave no time for science.


RE: I'm tired
By Ringold on 6/4/2008 2:57:57 PM , Rating: 1
That is the bottom line as to why I personally don't give a damn that NASA tried to shut him up. I pay taxes, therefore I pay his salary, and yet with that salary, instead of working hard for the government and adding value, he was out trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.


RE: I'm tired
By lifeblood on 6/4/2008 6:57:26 PM , Rating: 3
From the NASA Chief Scientist webpage:

quote:
The Chief Scientist, located in the Office of the Administrator, serves as the principal advisor to the Administrator in science issues including the budget content of NASA's science program and as interface to the national and international science community, ensuring that NASA research programs are scientifically and technologically well-founded, are appropriate for their intended applications, and meet safety, health, and quality requirements.


The Chief Scientist doesn't do research, but he is supposed to help guide what research is being done, as well as making sure it''s quality research. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but it sounds like he is doing his job. He is the interface, the public spokesman, for research being done at NASA. He gets paid to grant interviews.

If you want to complain about public servants who don't do their job, how about our three senators / presidential candidates who have missed numerous votes because they are out campaigning?


RE: I'm tired
By chrisld on 6/4/2008 12:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't have said it better. It's unpopular to dispute global warming but as an experienced PhD scientist who has looked at the data, there is no way you can conclude that there is any global warming and even if there were, that it's due to mankind.


RE: I'm tired
By Hare on 6/4/2008 1:17:50 PM , Rating: 3
First of all. I'm really sceptical about GW and specially the impact of mankind but what you just said is quite irrelevant.

quote:
Proven fact: Natural sources of "greenhouse gasses" far outweigh what humans contribute.
Completely irrelevant. So what? If you take a liter cup and let 9dl of rain pour in and add 1.5dl it flows over. Who cares if you only added roughtly 1/9 of what nature did. Some argue that once the cup is spilt further problems arise.
quote:
Proven fact: The earth has fluctuated in temperature all throughout its history.
Very true. But so what? You can have a natural warming cycle which is further increased by man made GW. Who's to say that the current trend would be a lot milder if mankind didn't have an impact.
quote:
Proven fact: The sun is the ultimate power in determining our planets temperature. Higher solar output = higher temperature. Lower solar output = lower temperature.
Sure. What does this have to do with GW unless you can prove that current temperature trends have been caused by solar activity (and nothing else). There are countless studies saying that the sun is the major cause and just as many diminishing the impact of solar activity. The same #2 argument also applies to this. Do you know the exact amount of warming caused by the sun compared to other sources? Is the warming caused by the sun just the icing on the cake?

Again. I'm not disagreeing with you. These facts simply don't prove anything.


RE: I'm tired
By geddarkstorm on 6/4/2008 2:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Completely irrelevant. So what? If you take a liter cup and let 9dl of rain pour in and add 1.5dl it flows over. Who cares if you only added roughtly 1/9 of what nature did. Some argue that once the cup is spilt further problems arise.


You'd be right until we throw this idea into a buffered system. Just like with pH: have a solution with buffer in there and add just a little acid and the pH won't change. Because the contribution of Man is so minuscule compared to the natural amounts of CO2 coming in and out, it's critical to prove that much if anything is changed by Man, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on saying Man has ANY effect, let alone warming the planet.

The climate is in a sort of equilibrium over long periods of time (or we'd have been totally frozen over, or turned into Venus long ago), and like all equilibriums, if you disturb one side of the equation, the other side changes to mitigate the effect and leave the equilibrium unaltered. It would necessarily take a lot more than the fraction of a fraction we add to throw the equilibrium so out of whack that it couldn't rebalance. As in, you'd have to add so much that the natural sources were now greatly less by comparison.

So no, issues of scale are highly relevant.


RE: I'm tired
By sinful on 6/4/2008 1:47:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Proven fact: The sun is the ultimate power in determining our planets temperature. Higher solar output = higher temperature. Lower solar output = lower temperature.


Brilliant!
And by what process is this solar energy "captured" in our atmosphere?
Maybe that energy gets stuck in some "gases", like a "greenhouse" or something.

Hrm, I wonder if we modified the amount of this "Greenhouse gas", whether we could influence the overall temperature of the planet...?

Seriously folks, citing the "Sun" as the source of higher temperatures is the same as saying you believe in Global Warming.

Yes, there would be no warming if there was no Sun. There would also be no warming if there were no Greenhouse gases.
Guess what: We can't control the Sun. We CAN, however, affect the greenhouse gases.


RE: I'm tired
By jimbojimbo on 6/4/2008 2:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize water vapor is a greenhouse gas?

By your logic since rising temperatures actualy extract CO2 from the oceans this should be an unstoppable event. Rising temperatures should cause more CO2 to be released into the air which in turn would cause higher temperatures and eventually the earth will be an absolute sauna until everything dies. Funny how that hasn't happened before.

How about rising temperatures extract more CO2 from the air but it has neglible effect on global temperatures. Then when the solar activity dies down a little the temperatures cool and the CO2 gets reabsorbed into the oceans.

The thing that gets me most is GW enthusiasts believe the sun burns at level X and never fluctuates in any manner whatsoever.


RE: I'm tired
By geddarkstorm on 6/4/2008 2:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
As the other poster pointed out, water is the most potent common greenhouse gas. Yet, we are not Venus--why?

For that matter, look at ice ages. As water freezes into ice it reflects sunlight away, the earth no longer absorbs as much heat and so continues to cool and more ice builds up. Naturally, one would assume via that parameter alone that the earth would totally turn into a snow ball forever. We are not frozen over--why?

The reason is because there is far more going on in the climate than simply the levels of greenhouse gases. We know next to nothing. The Late Ordovician period was an ice age with CO2 levels ~12 times higher than our own (~4400 ppm). In fact, the only time in earth's history that CO2 was as low as it is right now (below 400ppm) was during the Middle Carboniferous period (~350ppm then, 380ppm right now). The earth is actually on a very low swing, but we aren't in an ice age. So, what can one assume? CO2 is not the end all. It correlates with temperature, but that does not, in any way, mean it is the primary causation of temperature. Seriously, why are we not in an ice age? According to earth's history we should be--if CO2 was the only factor playing into this. So, what's really going on? Tell me, and then we can discuss how we should "control greenhouse gases".

On a side note, we should move away from polluting technology and fuels like gasoline as it only makes sense to better the environment and thus our living conditions.


RE: I'm tired
By nstott on 6/4/2008 9:41:36 PM , Rating: 1
There's a solar cycle in which the radiation output from the sun changes over time. Do you think the planet might get warmer or cooler based on the amount of output from the sun? These same trends based on the solar cycle also follow for warming and cooling on Neptune.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/0...

While the atmosphere does trap heat that keeps our planet from freezing, there are many phenomena in nature that have threshold limits. There are other factors that contribute to the temperature of the planet and the atmosphere's ability to hold in heat. Many of the alarmist AGW models use a static atmosphere that ignore natural processes, such as convection of our finitely thick atmosphere having a very significant effect on average temperature through releasing heat from our planet. Another problem with the alarmist models, as recently reported by masher here at DailyTech, is that the solutions to the differential equations used an infinitely thick atmosphere as the boundary conditions to make solving the equations easier.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou...

This was the method first used to solve such equations back in 1922. More recently, an AGW believer-turned-skeptic showed that using the correct, finite thickness of the earth's atmosphere in the boundary conditions results in a model that more accurately reflects past temperature data and a maximum average temperature threshold that the average temperature cannot increase beyond for a given solar output even as carbon dioxide levels increase. It is your choice if you want to believe in models for our planet that are completely impossible and do not come close to modeling reality (AGW would be the least of our worries as the pressure caused by an infinitely thick atmosphere would crush us to death assuming that such an atmosphere were even possible and that the gravitational pull from the mass of the "infinitely thick atmosphere" didn't cause our planet to collapse into some very tiny black hole or perhaps the infinitely thick atmosphere would encompass the entire universe, collapse on itself, and then result in a big bang - trusting a model that describes a quite impossible reality from our planet's current state is absurd).


RE: I'm tired
By GreyHobbyHorse on 6/5/2008 9:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously folks, not telling you that CO2 absorption is logarithmic and at levels slightly more than today's level, CO2 will have absorbed all the heat energy from the sun it is capable of absorbing. It's what I call disingenuously hiding facts.

Look at the greenhouse effect of CO2 as trying to block the light coming through a clear glass window with coats of white paint. How many coats of paint do you have to apply before you realize it's an impossible task? That's the effect of absorption spectra that you are witnessing.

The only way the doom and gloom predictions are made is with positive feedbacks, added by the modelers and not known to exists. Fudge factors, in other words. But the data says the feedbacks are likely negative. Oops, wrong sign, hey don't feel bad, I have done that before to.

CO2 was 4-5 times today's levels and Earth didn't roast.

Let's chack some boundary conditions: Sun goes to zero, what will climate do? Sun goes to infinity, what will climate do. Looks like the sun runs the show. Look up, see for yourself.


RE: I'm tired
By andrinoaa on 6/5/2008 8:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
Now that everyone is in agreement that GW is happening, we can turn to the cause.
Postings like yours, FITCAMARO, only muddy the waters. How can PROVEN FACTS be proven when 90% of the scientific community think other wise? It KILLS ANY LEGITIMACY your arguements carry. Its what YOU think. Don't asert what you think, to be facts. Sure they are factors, but please , you are not a scientist. If you were, you would develop your own model to try to prove your theories. The fact that you don't, suggests to me you are not intersted in real science, only trumpeting your own voice!
Evidence exists. Polar caps melting are not relevant???
Personally, I'd rather the science was wrong and we did something than science was right and we acted like turds in sand!!


RE: I'm tired
By GreyHobbyHorse on 6/5/2008 8:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Someone needs to stop the lies.

Computer models prove nothing, except you can produce a mathematical model to do your lying for you. Now data, that is an entirely different animal. If you don't lie about the data, which has been now corrected, you find the whole of AGW falls apart. Let's run an experiment, you do things the scientific way -- Let's initialize the models for say 1980, and predict what is to happen in 2008 and 2009. That way we can test the models, can't we ... Good way to prove your case, right?

So lets see some real proof that the AGW lies are true, then we can act. Real proof, like satellite data which shows how the minuscule amount of greenhouse gas CO2 is causing anything. Step right up, prove it. Forget the part about feedback, CO2 has been 4-5 times what it is today and there was no catastrophic happenings.

Any idea why the mathematical computer climate models don't include the influences of the sun on Earth's climate? Sounds like a really boneheaded omission to me -- or is there some other purpose in blowing off the sun? Looks like the sun has filed a recent objection, doesn't it.

As far as Hansen, his false prophecies have been spread far and wide, what more does he want?


With all this global warming...
By CyberHawk on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: With all this global warming...
By Suntan on 6/4/2008 1:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
And how are the likes of GB and France doing in actually *conforming* to the ideals they committed to in that protocall?? Yeah, not that good.

-Suntan


RE: With all this global warming...
By Icelight on 6/4/2008 2:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so you are one of those who, instead of running in the marathon even though you may be the weakest runner, will just sit on a bench and watch everyone else.


RE: With all this global warming...
By Suntan on 6/4/2008 2:44:52 PM , Rating: 3
No, I am one of the ones that gets tired of constantly hearing the hypocritically righteous tone from people that love to bring up the failed effort that is the Koyto Protocol.

I’m all for everyone taking one step back with respect to global usage of materials, I’d just as soon see it done in a realistic way as opposed to a politically “mine’s bigger than yours” waste of time that doesn’t result in much of anything after the new’s cameras have been turned off.

Or to use your little analogy. I’m one of the one’s that says he’s going to run if he actually is going to run, says he isn’t going to run if he isn’t going to run, but does *not* say he’s going to run if he has no intention of running.

-Suntan


RE: With all this global warming...
By CyberHawk on 6/5/2008 4:24:03 AM , Rating: 3
I knew I'd get rated down (like I care).

I didn't mean anything bad, it's just the way it is.

And all this thing about "sitting or running" thing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/OilC...

darker is more consumption of oil. And this image is not about to change for US.


RE: With all this global warming...
By Suntan on 6/5/2008 10:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
And yet, when you look at this pretty picture from “wiki-good for finding a quick chart to support my argument” you see that on a per capita basis, your little chart makes America out to be the big baddy of the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_populatio...

Once you realize that the population density of America is quite a bit less than a lot of other parts of the world (namely, Europe and Asia.) What this tells you is that, *on a per square mile of area* basis, your argument becomes less poignant.

Now, basing it on a per capita scale makes sense in that you can accurately proportion out the blame with little regard to the other factors. Looking at it on a per area basis does three things:

1) It reduces (probably doesn’t eliminate, but reduces) the ability of American haters to blame America.

2) Accommodates the fact that larger land masses are capable of sequestering more of this evil carbon than smaller land masses. Which you could argue is an important aspect when taken on a world wide basis

3) Accommodates the fact that America is more spread out than some countries (mostly looking at Europe here) and like it or not, that does influence the amount of carbon produced. A more spread out population requires more infrastructure than a tightly packed one. A weekend trip to bring the grandkids to grandma and grandpa for my buddy in Ireland can be all of 15 km, but it takes me 6 hours here.

In the end, if the enviros are right, and the oceans are all boiled away and what is left of the human population is bunkered underground in a vein effort to protect posterity, I am sure what will still be important will be holding on to the knowledge that this completely divergent assembly of people we used to group collectively as “Americans” was XX% responsible for it.

-Suntan


RE: With all this global warming...
By CyberHawk on 6/5/2008 12:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why are you trying to make me "hater of America", what I posted is a pure fact.

And, you know what they say; a lie --> bigger lie --> statistics.

So; in statistic you can represent results in such a way that suits you. That is what I'd say for the image above ;)

quote:
In the end, if the enviros are right, and the oceans are all boiled away and what is left of the human population is bunkered underground in a vein effort to protect posterity, I am sure what will still be important will be holding on to the knowledge that this completely divergent assembly of people we used to group collectively as “Americans” was XX% responsible for it.


Far from that, because we are on the same boat. But, I find (unable to find that article on DT) articles like; "winds from Shanghai are responsible for polluted air in USA" funny...


RE: With all this global warming...
By Suntan on 6/5/2008 1:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever tried to breath the air in Shanghai? I have, there's nothing funny about it. It makes the stinkhole of America (aka LA area) look as sweet as Eastern Montana. If you can't understand how jetstreams can carry high concentraitions of polutants long distances, I can't help you.

What I find funny are all the people that are always belly aching about "how something should be done" how "this country isn't doing enough" How many of those people have actually changed their usage patterns or sacrificed much of anything meanignful *specifically in the name of global warming*.

When's the last time you decided to stay home instead of going out to run and errand or go to the movie *specifically to reduce CO2 emissions? No it doesn't count if you curb your driving because gas costs more. No it doesn't count that you bought that Prius so that you can show off your enviro cred to your enviro buddies, there's a lot better way to help the envirnment than buying an eco-fashion symbol like a Prius, but they don't envolve the ability to sit at a stop light and look down on all the knuckledraggers in their non-hybrids.

When's the last time you turned the heater down to 55°F during the middle of Februry because you were concerned that the CO2 was going to kill the world?

Yeah, in the sliding scale that is "acceptable CO2 producing activities" their's are acceptable, what other people do beyond their's is unacceptable. That is what I find funny.

-Suntan


By CyberHawk on 6/5/2008 4:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
Now you found me :)

We separate all the trash (plastic, paper, ...). I live in a small village (20 families), near (3km) a small town called Zrece (3000 citizens - still a village for you).

Take a look:
http://www.pohorje-rogla.si/images/virtualni-spreh...

There is a lot of tourism here, so we all take care of nature just fine, believe me ;)


By CyberHawk on 6/6/2008 12:26:35 AM , Rating: 2
oh, and while we are at it, let us compare what we drive: I drive Renault Clio 1.2 (65HP). And your wheels? ;)


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki