Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin - Page 5

**leejo** · 04-07-2006, 06:53 PM

Did you say daft? Have you been hanging out at the Draft Horse or Fados?

"Global warming" has become, for one reason or another, a political term. Al Gore has certainly ranted enough about it. If a scientist doesn't recognize the impact his words have in his papers, then I'm glad someone's editing out the politicized language. Have charts or cold hard data points been redacted or altered? I haven't seen an assertion that it has, merely that certain political language is being edited out of papers.

What's the assertion? What horrible act has the administration committed, assuming these reports are entirely unbiased and accurate?

Quote:

administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions

Good. Scientists need to report their findings and stay out of policy decisions. Unless they wish to lose all credibility.

Quote:

(administration officials have) removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites

Right. It's a loaded term. Use numbers and charts and unloaded language to communicate results and stay away from political language.

Quote:

investigated news leaks

aka known as violations of departmental policy. Horrors!

Quote:

and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether.

lest they have their words twisted at the whim of the reporter and/or to prevent requiring the scientist's termination for yet another violation of department policy by commenting on policy.

Quote:

Phil Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, current Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, made the edits to that report, before it was published as legitimate scientific analysis to Congress. Talk about absurd.

Why? Your assertion seems to be that when a scientific journal makes politically charged assertions and uses politically loaded language then a peer-review of scientists is sufficient, regardless of their near-total lack of experience in making good policy decisions, but if political appointees or lawyers become involved then it's somehow a terrible decision? The instant we start get into policy issues then the politicians can, should, and will insinuate themselves. Scientists who wish to avoid this should be scrupulous in their efforts to report just the facts.

Quote:

Clearly whatever 'policy' existed regarding giving superiors the right to edit reports doesn't apply to scientific analysis. And given the fact that in addition to the edits being made to scientific language in these reports, the addition of bringing chaperones into the interview process, witholding of communications/press releases, 'pocket veto' denials of access to the media as described in the article all amounts to gross political censorship of scientists' analysis.

I agree. And I think that if scientists had shown more concern about earning their peers' respect and less in holding press conferences this could have been avoided. Your assertion, again, is that scientists are political eunichs and lawyers and oil executives are pariahs. Never mind that the former create few jobs and have little policy experience and the former do both for a living.

Furthermore, who cares if or why global warming is happening? Suppose it is, and suppose it's bad old humanity causing it. And? What's your point? It'll get hotter, and huge swaths of timeshares will have to be rebuilt a mile inland?

The important question is what policies will secure the best future for humanity. Personally, I have a strong bias toward my family, friends, community, and country. I don't trust any of the scientists I ever took a class from to make important policy decisions that shape my future, and I don't want them shooting their mouths off to reporters undermining their elected boss's political decisions.

You used to work for a big company. Imagine if ANYONE at your level had run to the media everytime you felt like it in a manner that made the CEO's life more difficult. If scientists or priests or teachers want to have politics leave them alone, they need to avoid talking to the press.

They know what they're doing when they talk to the WaPo, et al.

Beatnik · 04-07-2006, 07:30 PM

Yes I do appreciate both the lagers and the colloqiualisms of our friends in Ireland.

It appears that a fundamental assumption of your argument is that politically loaded language was edited out. Below is a copy of the letter sent in reference to Mr. Cooney's edits, cataloging some of the edits. As you can see, the nature of the edits made is not to remove any political assertions or even policy assertions. The edits are made to systematically exaggerate uncertainties in the analysis, and again is but a small part in the overall strategy in discrediting dissenting opinions, regardless of scientific merit. To wit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letter to the Comptroller General, June 29, 2005

Honorable David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW Washington, DC 20548

Dear Comptroller General Walker:

As you may have read in recent press reports, the former Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Philip Cooney, a lawyer with no scientific training, significantly altered the scientific conclusions of at least two studies commissioned by Congress. The reports Mr. Cooney altered were:

1.U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2002. Our Changing Planet: The Fiscal Year 2003 U.S. Global Change Research Program. Online at http://www.climatescience.gov 2. U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2003. Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Online at http://www.climatescience.gov.

Mr. Cooney has since left the Administration and will join ExxonMobil Corporation this fall. Prior to his employment at the White House, Mr. Cooney was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute (API). Both ExxonMobil and the API are leading opponents of policies to prevent global warming.

Since the altered reports were requested by, and directed to, Congress, and were prepared by departments and agencies of the U.S. Government, We are seeking your legal evaluation of whether Mr. Cooney’s actions violated two laws: 18 U.S.C. § 1505, Obstruction of Proceedings before Departments, Agencies, and Committees and 18 U.S.C. § 1001, Statements or Entries Generally.

Both of the reports to Congress altered by Mr. Cooney were required by statute: The U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C. § 2921 et seq.

We have attached excerpts from draft versions of these reports that contain Mr. Cooney’s handwritten alterations of scientific conclusions. The alterations are significant and changed the reports’ scientific conclusions.

For example, in the 2003 Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program, Mr. Cooney deleted an entire section on changes in the water cycle in polar regions. In the report Our Changing Planet, Mr. Cooney made such changes as “Earth is undergoing a period of rapid change” to “Earth may be undergoing a period of rapid change,” interjecting uncertainty where none was intended. Mr. Cooney commonly changed “is” and “will” to “might” and “may” when referring to impacts of climate change.

The chart below illustrates some of these changes:

REPORT ORIGINAL DRAFT REPORT COONEY ALTERATION (in bold)

Our Changing Planet, 2002

''Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change” ''Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.”

Our Changing Planet, 2002

“Much scientific evidence indicates that these changes are the result of a complex interplay of several natural and human-related forces.” “Much scientific evidence indicates that these changes are likely the result of a complex interplay of several natural and human-related forces.”

Our Changing Planet, 2002

“…develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions will affect the global environment in the future.” “…develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions might affect the global environment in the future.”

Our Changing Planet, 2002

“The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is difficult.” “The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.”

Our Changing Planet, 2002

“Scientists have started to assemble information on the complex relationships between natural variability and human activities that contribute to change.” “Scientists have started to assemble information on the complex relationships between natural variability and human activities that could contribute to change.”

Our Changing Planet, 2002

“..the role for CCRI is to facilitate full use of this scientific information in policy and decisionmaking on response strategies for adaptation and mitigation…” “…the role for CCRI is to reduce the significant remaining uncertainties associated with human-induced climate change and facilitate full use of…”

Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program, 2003

“Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow packs in polar regions. In turn, runoff rates will change and flood potential will be altered in ways that are currently not well understood. There will be significant shifts in the seasonality of runoff that will have serious impacts on native populations that rely on fishing and hunting for their livelihood. These changes will be further complicated by shifts in precipitation regimes and a possible intensification and increased frequency of extreme hydrologic events.”

Entire paragraph deleted

Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program, 2003

“Warming temperatures will also affect Arctic land areas.”

“Warming temperatures may also affect Arctic land areas.”

Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program, 2003

“…the hydrology of northern land areas will be substantially altered.”

“…the hydrology of northern land areas may be substantially altered.”

Both reports

“uncertainties” in reference to state of climate science “significant uncertainties” or “fundamental uncertainties.”

These alterations have severely harmed the integrity of U.S. Government scientific analyses, and the taxpayers who foot the bill for these doctored reports.

We look forward to your analysis of the legality of these actions by Mr. Cooney.

Sincerely,

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Global Climate Change Senate Commerce Committee

HARRY REID Democratic Senate leader

Note that this is a different incident than the thread's original story, but reflects another facet of the policy of having lawyers make content decisions about scientific, not political analysis. Also, check the 60 Minutes segment of additional examples. The scientists made no policy assertions in their report, only analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Your assertion seems to be that when a scientific journal makes politically charged assertions and uses politically loaded language then a peer-review of scientists is sufficient, regardless of their near-total lack of experience in making good policy decisions, but if political appointees or lawyers become involved then it's somehow a terrible decision? The instant we start get into policy issues then the politicians can, should, and will insinuate themselves. Scientists who wish to avoid this should be scrupulous in their efforts to report just the facts.

Again, we're talking about scientific analysis here, not policy decisions. The lawyers making the changes above made changes that exaggerated or qualified the interpretation of the results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Furthermore, who cares if or why global warming is happening? Suppose it is, and suppose it's bad old humanity causing it. And? What's your point? It'll get hotter, and huge swaths of timeshares will have to be rebuilt a mile inland?

That's not my objection here. Environmental Climatologists are very, very smart people. Their scientific analysis, and the review by their peers, is sufficient for me. And from what I've read, the implications of significant climate change a far graver than your flippant characterization of the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I don't trust any of the scientists I ever took a class from to make important policy decisions that shape my future, and I don't want them shooting their mouths off to reporters undermining their elected boss's political decisions.

I don't even know how to reply to that. These NASA/NOAA scientists are not making policy decisions. They're doing their jobs collecting and analyzing data. 'Loyalty' or 'Undermining their boss' is not the point.

The point is that altering scientific analysis is a disservice to us all, whether we agree with whatever policy it supports or contradicts, or not.

**leejo** · 04-07-2006, 08:04 PM

Well, first of all, I fully agree with all of those edits and think they are much more appropriate in forward-looking statements. I don't see what the hissy fit is about.

I was not aware of this evidence, but was simply repling to the assertions made in the article: that "global warming' was removed from documents, etc.

And again, these scientists are attempting to shape policy. Altering scientific analysis is only harmful if that analysis is wholly free of political or professional bias. Reading the unedited lines, and considering the indignation shown at these mild edits, I think there's an agenda and a bias that's being offended, not science.

Tell me, what's the harm that's been done with these edits? Because of them politicians and the public might not take the action you desire? What *fact* did these edits alter?

Lucky Shot · 04-07-2006, 09:08 PM

Just wanted to toss this on...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Scientists blame the sun for global warming and warm of impending ice age in the future. Astronomers and Climatologists say that the 1/2 degree rise in temperature that has occurred in the last 120 years, the majority of the increase happened before 1940. This would place it before the major increase in Green House Gasses as we know them.

Lucky Shot

Beatnik · 04-07-2006, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

And again, these scientists are attempting to shape policy. Altering scientific analysis is only harmful if that analysis is wholly free of political or professional bias. Reading the unedited lines, and considering the indignation shown at these mild edits, I think there's an agenda and a bias that's being offended, not science.

Tell me, what's the harm that's been done with these edits? Because of them politicians and the public might not take the action you desire? What *fact* did these edits alter?

How is the language in the original report an attempt at shaping policy? Please give an example of political or "professional bias".

"These mild edits", again along with the agenda and the aforementioned other steps taken to shape science to fit policy, are all bits that add up to shaping science with an predetermined end in mind. Again, view the 60 Minutes report for other more flagrant edits, none of which have any kind of political or policy implication apart from the straight reporting of data collected. The sum of all the actions taken that I've seen reported in effect alters the very conclusions the scientists made.

It sounds like we're both in agreement that the science itself should be unaltered. It appears to me that you think the scientists are shaping the science, while I definitely believe the politicians are shaping the science. I've cited plenty of factual evidence supporting my perspective, but haven't seen anything other then rhetorical support of yours.

From my perspective, you're seeing some (other) scientists' public comments as evidence of 'bias' or an 'agenda', which is somehow creeping into their reports. While that may be the case (or not), nothing I've cited is consistent with that theory.

The government I pay for should have zero conflict with or influence on the actual science involved based on some predetermined policy or dogma, whether it's stem cells or climate research. Any shaping of data or analysis done by either the scientists or politicians is simply bad science. Science is, at the highest level, all that we really know about this world we live in. Just because it isn't consistent with a previously-determined policy doesn't make it any less valid.

As a post script, I'm not advocating any action other than the presentation of scientific data as is. I'd be perfectly happy if the colossal amounts of evidence supporting "global warming" were to be easily refuted with actual data.

**GhostintheShell** · 04-07-2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Just wanted to toss this on...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Scientists blame the sun for global warming and warm of impending ice age in the future. Astronomers and Climatologists say that the 1/2 degree rise in temperature that has occurred in the last 120 years, the majority of the increase happened before 1940. This would place it before the major increase in Green House Gasses as we know them.

Lucky Shot

Exactly. People have to backtrack about 4 pages and download the spreadsheets I posted.
"Global Warming" is a red herring. It does not exist. (Yes, that is a blanket statement.) Some areas of the earth ARE warming, while others ARE cooling. Thats what I would call "Local Warming", not "Global warming". Average global temperatures have remained incredibly stable.

Arguing about whether or not some scientist made some stupid statements out of line, or that someone changed some "will" statements to "may" statements is trivial and unimportant.

Beatnik · 04-07-2006, 10:42 PM

I saw your posts, but I have no illusions that I can interpret significant differences from the raw data contained therein.

This link to the NOAA appears to be consistent with what you said about recent temperature changes.

However, of course the last 20 or 50 or even 100 years isn't a true indicator of the overall trend in climate change. So secondary data sources are used to look at temperature trends over the past thousands of years. Using data like ice cores and tree growth, both of which contain data about temperature and atmospheric content, is a reasonably reliable secondary method of interpolating global climate change, as discussed slightly lower in the doc here.

**CingularDuality** · 04-08-2006, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

However, of course the last 20 or 50 or even 100 years isn't a true indicator of the overall trend in climate change.

Ummm, if the assertion is that the human industrial age (read: SUVs) is the cause of the global warming, then why not?

**GhostintheShell** · 04-08-2006, 08:37 AM

Exactly. It has nothing to do with "carbon neutral" lifestyles. We have been moving towards lower carbon energy sources on our own for probably over 500 years. (wood->coal->petrolium->???)

No, global warming has nothing to do with human's other than an increased concentration of heat in urban areas. This is simply due to increased density of people and energy in a limited space. (Island heat affect)

World population has tripled since 1950 from 2b to >6b people and our ability to utilise energy has probably gone up 20 fold, but the average temperature has not gone up? How is that possible if global warming is supposedly caused by humans/carbon dioxide/cow farts/rainforest depletion?

If it is a naturally occurring phenomenon, why are we griping about it? There will never be anything we can do about it. They can't predict the future of climate with any certainty anyway, so isn't it a bit of a chicken little issue?

**leejo** · 04-08-2006, 11:09 AM

I think the real red herring is the interest in placing blame for global warming on human activities, or insisting that humans change our behavior to avert or minimize the effects of the so-called global warming.

The real questions are what impact will long-term changes in global or local climate have on human interests and activities, and what if anything do we need to do to place ourselves in the best possible position? If it turns out to be that global warming has nothing to do with human activity but it still kills us off, did someone "win"?

A closely related question is how much certainty do we need before we start taking action? There are consequences to waiting too long, and there are consequences to lowering human energy consumption in terms of jobs lost, opportunities missed, and impoverished people continuing to live in squallor.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems that every time Al Gore goes on a rant about global warming NY City gets a blizzard.

I believe that the scientific community do have a bias and are playing politics by attempting to set public policy. When Carl Sagan, who inspired me when I was a kid, and peers held press conferences and issued reports about the impact of "Nuclear Winter" they weren't merely publicizing their findings, they were attempting to shape public opinion such that policy makers would be forced to make certain decisions with regard to nuclear arms. I see the same sort of thing happening here.

Beatnik et al, if you don't see that happening, we're just going to have to disagree, but I believe that these complaints have much more to do with the policy and personal issues people have with this administration than any real concern about the science.

Why is it a problem to instruct a department not to talk to the press? Why are they upset about this restriction?

Why do these scientists complain about these edits to forward looking statements such that "will" is changed to "is likely to". These edits made factually untrue statements into factually correct statements, but the scientists who wrote the original don't like it because a) unlike the rest of us, they are infallable and can write a good paper in addition to performing good science or b) are overly fond of the picture their assertions create and do not like having their "certainty" replaced by mere "strong probability".

Why? What possible scientific complaint could one raise for that edit? None. The only complaint is a political one.

What will local and global climate look like in 50-100 years? What will the impact be on human activities? What can we do about it? What will the consequences of those remedial actions be? These are the questions I have. I don't care whose fault it is - the sun or the SUV - and I'm not worried if some birds and bugs eat it along the way.

**GhostintheShell** · 04-08-2006, 03:20 PM

Wow, the stars must be aligned just right or something because leejo and I actually agree on something.

+rep for you leejo.

Beatnik · 04-08-2006, 03:41 PM

Again, I can't say it any more simply. Lawyers, especially former lobbyists whose business interests may be negatively impacted by the troubling results contained in these reports, have zero right to systematically edit research findings made by sceintists.

That's the topic of this thread, and simply what I'm asserting. Regardless of the validity of either side of the global warming debate. The reports I cited were not policy statements, they were presentation of findings. Leave the policy makers to the policy, and the research scientists to the science.

It's the blurring of this distinction by the government, and the carefree, flippant acceptance of that blurring by people such as yourself, that's most troubling to me.

As far as your perception that "it's more about personal issues than any real concern people have", that's far from true. While I do think Bush is an incompetent, dogmatic, hermetically sealed off partisan that somehow thinks ignorance is a virtue and science is a malleable object that can be shaped to fit his error ridden preconceptions of the world, it's not those perceptions forming my argument here. It's simply the facts that I've cited, which all combine to point to the systematic alteration of scientific data to make it more consistent with current industry practices.

Cing - the issue I was getting at there was 'small sample size'. If you just look at data from the last 50 or 100 years, you have no meaningful baseline with which to gauge differences in temperature.

**leejo** · 04-08-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

Again, I can't say it any more simply. Lawyers, especially former lobbyists whose business interests may be negatively impacted by the troubling results contained in these reports, have zero right to systematically edit research findings made by sceintists.

Says who? And why? Where is it written that scientists can write anything they please and make inferences or predictions of the future that are not subject to any review? Had anyone asserted that their graphs or data had been edited, I would be concerned. But merely toning down some assertions and predictions they made looks to me like a better, more logical mind is correctly modifying some slightly hysterical prognostication. If any of these guys who say the artic is going to melt can tell me what the average temperature in Manhattan is going to be in March 2011 within 3 degrees, I'll reconsider my position on this. But they can't, because they don't know. Yet this guy's a criminal for chaging "will" to "may" in their predictions of disaster for a region in 100 years or so? It's laughable.

Quote:

It's the blurring of this distinction by the government, and the carefree, flippant acceptance of that blurring by people such as yourself, that's most troubling to me.

I take exception to that. I consider these scientists arrogant and self-aggrandizing. They have suffered some very mild restrictions on their ability to shoot their mouths off at will and have had some incedniary language redacted from their papers. They have had forward-looking statements edited to remove their "certainty" and substitute more accurate language that reflects merely a strong likelihood. But I am neither carefree nor flippant about this. I am angry at these scientists' grandstanding and rolling my eyes at your outrage over the complaints raised in the article and the edits cited as examples of your gripe. By I'm not carefree or flippant. I think these issues are serious, I just happen to disagree with your position that scientist's words, not data, should be sacrosanct, especially when they decide to take on their elected bosses. Personally I think they deserve a trip to the toolshed.

Diceman · 04-08-2006, 06:30 PM

I would think that for a person to have done extensive research in the area, plus a goodly number of credentials to boot, entitles a person to speak his or her mind on a particular subject. After all, they are paid to be scientists, not yes-men. If the "boss" wants yes-men, he should hire people with the clear understanding that they will be expected to toe the line.

As Beatnik has been saying, if their data and/or conclusions are heinously inaccurate or wrong, then I think we can be confident that the system of peer review used by serious scientists will be sufficient to deliver a corrected version. This sytem worked pretty well for cold fusion and quantum mechanics (both arguably crazier ideas than man-made climate change), why would it fail here?

I think there is a reasonable assumption that professions are self-correcting. The scientific community produces opinion on natural phenomena and their consequences for society. The legal community produces opinion on legal issues and their consequences for society. If crazies within one of these communities starts producing opinion that is out of sync with the facts, the rest of the community will act of its own accord to correct the ensuing misinformation. This goes on for most (if not all) professions out there.

It is up to the politicians to produce reasonable and effective policy that finds its grounding in these opinions, and the politicians are ultimately held accountable to that end by the public. Accountability is ensured by the public having access to the same information that the government has (barring some fact and opinion relating to national security).

I'd be very nervous about opening up authorial control of a scientific document (with all the scholarly merit and serious consideration that is attached to such documents) to those who have any other interest than science in mind. They have other avenues by which they can make their opinions and findings known. Just as I listen to lawyers and judges on what is lawful, I want to hear scientists on what is scientific. A lawyer's interpretation won't do.

To me, the point of a scientific document is the measurements and conclusions. I find it hard to believe that the lawyers are more interested in the scientific conclusions than the political consequences of a report. That conflict of interest is sufficient, IMO, to bar them from any kind of control over the form, tone or conclusions of a scientific document.

After all, it's not like the government has to do something just because the scientists say so, and scientific considerations are not the only considerations that exist. Economic, religious, legal and other concerns abound. Good policy must represent, as much as is possible, the intersection between these interests. Suppressing (through modification, in this instance) one's best information from any source does not make for good decisions.

**CingularDuality** · 04-08-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

Again, I can't say it any more simply. Lawyers, especially former lobbyists whose business interests may be negatively impacted by the troubling results contained in these reports, have zero right to systematically edit research findings made by sceintists.

Were "research findings" edited, or were opinions based on the findings edited?

Quote:

Cing - the issue I was getting at there was 'small sample size'. If you just look at data from the last 50 or 100 years, you have no meaningful baseline with which to gauge differences in temperature.

But SUVs have only been around for a few decades! You're ignoring the politics of the scientists, Beatnik.

04-07-2006, 08:04 PM	#63 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,683	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Well, first of all, I fully agree with all of those edits and think they are much more appropriate in forward-looking statements. I don't see what the hissy fit is about. I was not aware of this evidence, but was simply repling to the assertions made in the article: that "global warming' was removed from documents, etc. And again, these scientists are attempting to shape policy. Altering scientific analysis is only harmful if that analysis is wholly free of political or professional bias. Reading the unedited lines, and considering the indignation shown at these mild edits, I think there's an agenda and a bias that's being offended, not science. Tell me, what's the harm that's been done with these edits? Because of them politicians and the public might not take the action you desire? What fact did these edits alter?

04-07-2006, 09:08 PM	#64 (permalink)
Lucky Shot Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,639	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Just wanted to toss this on... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm Scientists blame the sun for global warming and warm of impending ice age in the future. Astronomers and Climatologists say that the 1/2 degree rise in temperature that has occurred in the last 120 years, the majority of the increase happened before 1940. This would place it before the major increase in Green House Gasses as we know them. Lucky Shot

04-07-2006, 10:42 PM	#67 (permalink)
Beatnik Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Age: 33 Posts: 4,322	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin I saw your posts, but I have no illusions that I can interpret significant differences from the raw data contained therein. This link to the NOAA appears to be consistent with what you said about recent temperature changes. However, of course the last 20 or 50 or even 100 years isn't a true indicator of the overall trend in climate change. So secondary data sources are used to look at temperature trends over the past thousands of years. Using data like ice cores and tree growth, both of which contain data about temperature and atmospheric content, is a reasonably reliable secondary method of interpolating global climate change, as discussed slightly lower in the doc here. __________________ -F- Beatnik

04-08-2006, 08:37 AM	#69 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Exactly. It has nothing to do with "carbon neutral" lifestyles. We have been moving towards lower carbon energy sources on our own for probably over 500 years. (wood->coal->petrolium->???) No, global warming has nothing to do with human's other than an increased concentration of heat in urban areas. This is simply due to increased density of people and energy in a limited space. (Island heat affect) World population has tripled since 1950 from 2b to >6b people and our ability to utilise energy has probably gone up 20 fold, but the average temperature has not gone up? How is that possible if global warming is supposedly caused by humans/carbon dioxide/cow farts/rainforest depletion? If it is a naturally occurring phenomenon, why are we griping about it? There will never be anything we can do about it. They can't predict the future of climate with any certainty anyway, so isn't it a bit of a chicken little issue? __________________ Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

04-08-2006, 11:09 AM	#70 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,683	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin I think the real red herring is the interest in placing blame for global warming on human activities, or insisting that humans change our behavior to avert or minimize the effects of the so-called global warming. The real questions are what impact will long-term changes in global or local climate have on human interests and activities, and what if anything do we need to do to place ourselves in the best possible position? If it turns out to be that global warming has nothing to do with human activity but it still kills us off, did someone "win"? A closely related question is how much certainty do we need before we start taking action? There are consequences to waiting too long, and there are consequences to lowering human energy consumption in terms of jobs lost, opportunities missed, and impoverished people continuing to live in squallor. I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems that every time Al Gore goes on a rant about global warming NY City gets a blizzard. I believe that the scientific community do have a bias and are playing politics by attempting to set public policy. When Carl Sagan, who inspired me when I was a kid, and peers held press conferences and issued reports about the impact of "Nuclear Winter" they weren't merely publicizing their findings, they were attempting to shape public opinion such that policy makers would be forced to make certain decisions with regard to nuclear arms. I see the same sort of thing happening here. Beatnik et al, if you don't see that happening, we're just going to have to disagree, but I believe that these complaints have much more to do with the policy and personal issues people have with this administration than any real concern about the science. Why is it a problem to instruct a department not to talk to the press? Why are they upset about this restriction? Why do these scientists complain about these edits to forward looking statements such that "will" is changed to "is likely to". These edits made factually untrue statements into factually correct statements, but the scientists who wrote the original don't like it because a) unlike the rest of us, they are infallable and can write a good paper in addition to performing good science or b) are overly fond of the picture their assertions create and do not like having their "certainty" replaced by mere "strong probability". Why? What possible scientific complaint could one raise for that edit? None. The only complaint is a political one. What will local and global climate look like in 50-100 years? What will the impact be on human activities? What can we do about it? What will the consequences of those remedial actions be? These are the questions I have. I don't care whose fault it is - the sun or the SUV - and I'm not worried if some birds and bugs eat it along the way.

04-08-2006, 03:20 PM	#71 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Wow, the stars must be aligned just right or something because leejo and I actually agree on something. +rep for you leejo. __________________ Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

04-08-2006, 03:41 PM	#72 (permalink)
Beatnik Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Age: 33 Posts: 4,322	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Again, I can't say it any more simply. Lawyers, especially former lobbyists whose business interests may be negatively impacted by the troubling results contained in these reports, have zero right to systematically edit research findings made by sceintists. That's the topic of this thread, and simply what I'm asserting. Regardless of the validity of either side of the global warming debate. The reports I cited were not policy statements, they were presentation of findings. Leave the policy makers to the policy, and the research scientists to the science. It's the blurring of this distinction by the government, and the carefree, flippant acceptance of that blurring by people such as yourself, that's most troubling to me. As far as your perception that "it's more about personal issues than any real concern people have", that's far from true. While I do think Bush is an incompetent, dogmatic, hermetically sealed off partisan that somehow thinks ignorance is a virtue and science is a malleable object that can be shaped to fit his error ridden preconceptions of the world, it's not those perceptions forming my argument here. It's simply the facts that I've cited, which all combine to point to the systematic alteration of scientific data to make it more consistent with current industry practices. Cing - the issue I was getting at there was 'small sample size'. If you just look at data from the last 50 or 100 years, you have no meaningful baseline with which to gauge differences in temperature. __________________ -F- Beatnik

04-08-2006, 06:30 PM	#74 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin I would think that for a person to have done extensive research in the area, plus a goodly number of credentials to boot, entitles a person to speak his or her mind on a particular subject. After all, they are paid to be scientists, not yes-men. If the "boss" wants yes-men, he should hire people with the clear understanding that they will be expected to toe the line. As Beatnik has been saying, if their data and/or conclusions are heinously inaccurate or wrong, then I think we can be confident that the system of peer review used by serious scientists will be sufficient to deliver a corrected version. This sytem worked pretty well for cold fusion and quantum mechanics (both arguably crazier ideas than man-made climate change), why would it fail here? I think there is a reasonable assumption that professions are self-correcting. The scientific community produces opinion on natural phenomena and their consequences for society. The legal community produces opinion on legal issues and their consequences for society. If crazies within one of these communities starts producing opinion that is out of sync with the facts, the rest of the community will act of its own accord to correct the ensuing misinformation. This goes on for most (if not all) professions out there. It is up to the politicians to produce reasonable and effective policy that finds its grounding in these opinions, and the politicians are ultimately held accountable to that end by the public. Accountability is ensured by the public having access to the same information that the government has (barring some fact and opinion relating to national security). I'd be very nervous about opening up authorial control of a scientific document (with all the scholarly merit and serious consideration that is attached to such documents) to those who have any other interest than science in mind. They have other avenues by which they can make their opinions and findings known. Just as I listen to lawyers and judges on what is lawful, I want to hear scientists on what is scientific. A lawyer's interpretation won't do. To me, the point of a scientific document is the measurements and conclusions. I find it hard to believe that the lawyers are more interested in the scientific conclusions than the political consequences of a report. That conflict of interest is sufficient, IMO, to bar them from any kind of control over the form, tone or conclusions of a scientific document. After all, it's not like the government has to do something just because the scientists say so, and scientific considerations are not the only considerations that exist. Economic, religious, legal and other concerns abound. Good policy must represent, as much as is possible, the intersection between these interests. Suppressing (through modification, in this instance) one's best information from any source does not make for good decisions. __________________ [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1] [ma-c2][taw-c1] Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette: Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due. Treat others as you would have them treat you

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links