Bush Administration Interferes with Research (1 Viewer)

[ngdawg]

Star Ledger Report

Scientists at a world-renowned climate research lab in New Jersey say their discoveries are being hidden from public view because their conclusions on global warming differ from those in the Bush administration.

The scientists, part of the research staff of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, say a spate of press releases as well as a position paper reviewing various studies on the risk of global warming have been quashed by officials at the Commerce Department.

The researchers work at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Plainsboro, a small branch of NOAA and the birthplace of the technique that uses computer models to forecast climate.

They say the press releases and the position paper detailed reports linking intensified hurricanes to global warming. The reports also predict spells of intense weather like droughts and floods, and paint some warming as irreversible, the scientists say.

"What can I tell you? I was telling them something they didn't want to hear," said Richard Wetherald, a career scientist at the federally funded center. "But the public is not being informed when these things are zapped."

Wetherald, 70, a registered Republican, said the Commerce Department has quashed three press releases written to trumpet major findings stemming from his research at the lab near Princeton.

My own conclusions after reading this article today is that this administration is intent on keeping us dependent on fossil fuels because of their own selfish interests. Propoganda is not only the spreading of twisted information, it can also be the suppression of facts from the public.

Research and development into alternative energy sources has been ongoing for decades. We have the technology to use solar, wind, biofuels, and natural gas to fuel our vehicles, heat and run electricity in our homes and businesses, yet dependency on fossil fuels has never been stronger.

This article should be a wake up call for anyone who really thinks this administration is environmentally pro-active in any way.

 

[Amused]

Lies. The administration that selflessly put an end to stem cell research would never meddle with science that does not support their goals and ambitions.

 

[Amused]

That was irony, actually it has not been uncommon for administrations, note not just this one-they just make an art of it- to cover up or dismiss scientific data in the support of their own moral or economic ambitions. As a biologist, I die a little when ever it happens, but it has long ceased to be a surprising event. Look no further than governmental sponsered degradation of the environment and the far reaching impacts to see governmental coverups. Global warming is unfortunately a problem larger than even the worst land management screwups. Its a shame that the US will never do anything about it until its too little, too late.

 

[ngdawg]

Do you think it is because it's to keep us dependent on fossil fuel, because they don't want to have to fund the research into alternatives or because they're 'protecting us'?
My own pessimism says it's the first-to keep the $$$ rolling into the fossil fuel mafias that then pour that money into the pockets of investing lawmakers.
I would love to see the personal investment reports of every one of them-that'd make for some fine pre-election day reading.

 

[aquapub]

My own conclusions after reading this article today is that this administration is intent on keeping us dependent on fossil fuels because of their own selfish interests.

That might make sense if it weren't for Bush's unprecedented environmental initiatives like the tens of billions of dollars he dedicated to hybrid fuel cell research during his first term.

 

[Amused]

That might make sense if it weren't for Bush's unprecedented environmental initiatives like the tens of billions of dollars he dedicated to hybrid fuel cell research during his first term.

I assure you, he has not dedicated tens of billions of dollars to hybrid fuel cell research. He threw out a red herring $50 million for hydrogen fuel cells, but it never saw the light of day, it was cut in committee in 2003. If you want to see where the new sources of fuel are, look no further than Exxon, which holds the largest number of renewable resource patents in the US. They aren't doing it for the environmental aspects, they are just putting them in draws.

Oddly enough, they have a lot to lose over global warming regulations. Coincidence?

 

[aquapub]

I assure you, he has not dedicated tens of billions of dollars to hybrid fuel cell research. He threw out a red herring $50 million for hydrogen fuel cells, but it never saw the light of day, it was cut in committee in 2003. If you want to see where the new sources of fuel are, look no further than Exxon, which holds the largest number of renewable resource patents in the US. They aren't doing it for the environmental aspects, they are just putting them in draws.

Oddly enough, they have a lot to lose over global warming regulations. Coincidence?

There's a reason global warming has so little consensus about what it entails, which patterns mean what, how data to is collected, how data changes over time, etc-it is a widely speculative theory. So when people take an already scientifically questionable theory and then claim to be able to factually link it to specific weather events, they are going to be disregarded by anyone with any sense.

It is entirely feasible that these two scientists were not embraced by the commerce department because they were about to introduce another series of bad science findings to be regurgitated as gospel by those seeking to frivolously restrict business (liberals).

And here is one article that mentions just one thing President Bush did to fund hybrid research beyond what you are claiming...

Excerpt:

"President George W. Bush's administration prefers auto industry self help and has embraced futuristic hydrogen fuel-cell technology. The U.S. energy department announced on Tuesday that it will provide $100 million over four years for research projects to improve hydrogen fuel cells for running a fleet of environmentally friendly vehicles."

The Toronto Star. January 26, 2006. Pg. D09. "Ford hybrid SUV runs on ethanol." John Crawley, ; REUTERS NEWS AGENCY.

 

[Amused]

There's a reason global warming has so little consensus about what it entails, which patterns mean what, how data to is collected, how data changes over time, etc-it is a widely speculative theory. So when people take an already scientifically questionable theory and then claim to be able to factually link it to specific weather events, they are going to be disregarded by anyone with any sense.

Granted, there are questions about what will happen exactly (we don't know if it will be cloudier or not). Global warming however is a very novel issue for science in that there is little natural empirical evidence (we have very few readings from the ice age). But in lab settings, it has been PROVEN that CO2 will lead to a decrease in the amount of heat leaving a system. This is a fact. This is also the basic claim for global warming, we are increasing the amount of CO2 and the amount of heat that is leaving the Earth and going to space is decreasing. This leads to the temperature rising. At the point where there is no speculation here, simply analysis and experimental evidence, it is no longer reasonable to claim global warming as a scientifically questionable theory. Linking specific weather issues is then scientifically feasible (warm water leads to stronger hurricanes, global warming makes things warm, tropical water is warmer than at any other tested period, leading to the conclusion that the warming affects of global warming lead to nastier hurricanes).

"President George W. Bush's administration prefers auto industry self help and has embraced futuristic hydrogen fuel-cell technology. The U.S. energy department announced on Tuesday that it will provide $100 million over four years for research projects to improve hydrogen fuel cells for running a fleet of environmentally friendly vehicles."

The Toronto Star. January 26, 2006. Pg. D09. "Ford hybrid SUV runs on ethanol." John Crawley, ; REUTERS NEWS AGENCY.

This fuels my arugment that millions =/= billions.

 

[aquapub]

1) Granted, there are questions about what will happen exactly (we don't know if it will be cloudier or not).

2) This fuels my arugment that millions =/= billions.

1) No. There is far wider disagreement on far more important issues than that. There have been huge spikes in the Earth's temp. over periods with no increase in Carbon, we've had some of our largest storms during cooling periods...

There are hundreds of confounding factors in establishing that global warming is even due to human behavior, let alone the ridiculous amount of logical leaps required to link specific storm systems to it.

Bush's people probably simply don't believe the findings this thread is based on, and with good reason. There has been way too much bad science over the years (usually coming from liberal/anti-business/environmental groups) and there is too much disagreement over this issue for the government to strap the people creating all the jobs with needless restrictions...just in case liberals turn out to be more right about global warming than they were breast implants, PCBs, DDT, AIDS, IQ, etc.

2) I would MUCH RATHER them just keep focusing on developing BUSINESS FRIENDLY, cleaner technologies. And that example of Bush FURTHER beefing up investments in hybrid research:

-disproves your "$50 million" assertion, and
-is just one example of funding. It isn't just that $100 million that was invested.

 

[Amused]

1) No. There is far wider disagreement on far more important issues than that. There have been huge spikes in the Earth's temp. over periods with no increase in Carbon, we've had some of our largest storms during cooling periods...

No one will ever say that CO2 is the only factor, nor that it is the only thing that can raise the temperature, but at the point where we have shown that this is one of the chemicals that does, and we have the ability to stop it, we have not just a moral obligation to protect our planet, but a dire need to.

There are hundreds of confounding factors in establishing that global warming is even due to human behavior, let alone the ridiculous amount of logical leaps required to link specific storm systems to it.

Refer to my previous argument that CO2 does insulate its environment, we are putting it in to the atmosphere, and the world is getting warmer (more insulated).

Bush's people probably simply don't believe the findings this thread is based on, and with good reason. There has been way too much bad science over the years (usually coming from liberal/anti-business/environmental groups) and there is too much disagreement over this issue for the government to strap the people creating all the jobs with needless restrictions...just in case liberals turn out to be more right about global warming than they were breast implants, PCBs, DDT, AIDS, IQ, etc.

There is significantly more research on this issue than you are crediting. In addition, you should not wait until you are shot to decide that bullets can cause pain. Some issues are not reversible, and the affects surrounding global warming are one of them. Industry has fought over ever basic safety right that they have come across claiming it will cost millions of jobs and destroy their business (ending slavery, child labor, minimum wage, scrubbers on their stacks) and the fact is at no time has this been the case. It is a case of greed, and nothing else that is preventing the needed change. Plus, silicon breast implants have been proving to leak, PCBs are carcinogenic and persist in the ground water decades after leaking in to it, AIDS is bad, and I don't know what your IQ argument is.

2) I would MUCH RATHER them just keep focusing on developing BUSINESS FRIENDLY, cleaner technologies. And that example of Bush FURTHER beefing up investments in hybrid research:

-disproves your "$50 million" assertion, and
-is just one example of funding. It isn't just that $100 million that was invested.

Business friendly changes are no changes. Refer to my previous argument that industry has fought like hell over every change, claiming each will destroy them. I say, do what is needed to prevent a catastrophe. If the businesses cannot sustain themselves, then it is still net beneficial that the changes were made to save millions of lives. Most likely, they will survive, just like EVERY other time anyone has tried to do something to change their practices.

 

[Thelost1]

There's a reason global warming has so little consensus about what it entails, which patterns mean what, how data to is collected, how data changes over time, etc-it is a widely speculative theory. So when people take an already scientifically questionable theory and then claim to be able to factually link it to specific weather events, they are going to be disregarded by anyone with any sense.

It is entirely feasible that these two scientists were not embraced by the commerce department because they were about to introduce another series of bad science findings to be regurgitated as gospel by those seeking to frivolously restrict business (liberals).

And yet you call yourself a professor...
sad, really.

 

[tecoyah]

Globally,there is very little argument as to the reality of climate change. Here in the United States can be found the vast majority of the debate against its coming impact. I attribute much of the dissagreement to dissinformation, and "head in the sand" economics, combined with a subtle propoganda campaign by industry and Administration policy.

Lets take a look at European understanding:

"Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts than previously believed, a major scientific report has said.

The report, published by the UK government, says there is only a small chance of greenhouse gas emissions being kept below "dangerous" levels.

It fears the Greenland ice sheet is likely to melt, leading sea levels to rise by 7m (23ft) over 1,000 years.

The poorest countries will be most vulnerable to these effects, it adds.

The report, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, collates evidence presented by scientists at a conference hosted by the UK Meteorological Office in February 2005.

The conference set two principal objectives: to ask what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is too much, and what the options are for avoiding such a level.


It's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people
Margaret Beckett

In the report's foreword, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair writes that "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm

Science tempers fears on climate change
Matthew Warren
September 02, 2006
THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.

"A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body's forecasts five years ago.

For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels.

In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C.

The new projections put paid to some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period.

The report projects a rise in sea levels by century's end of between 14cm and 43cm, with further rises expected in following centuries caused by melting polar ice.

The new projections forecast damage by global warming, such as stronger cyclones, modest sea-level rises and further shrinking of the arctic sea ice.

CSIRO research predicts the biggest impact of sea-level changes of this scale would be to increase the effect of storm surges, particularly on Australia's tropical northern coastline.

The forecast temperature rises would also result in lower rainfall over most of the Australian mainland and exacerbate the threat to the survival of coral reefs and shellfish by increasing the risk of bleaching and increasing the acidity of the ocean.

Australian Conservation Foundation energy program manager Erwin Jackson said theprojections required an urgent and immediate response from the federal Government to drive accelerated investment in low-emissions technology in Australia. "
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20332352-601,00.html


I honestly feel it is much too late to stop the inevitable changes.....our Kids will just have to Wallow in our Sh!t for a couple centuries.

 

[aquapub]

And yet you call yourself a professor...
sad, really.

1) Actually, Debate Politics calls me "professor," not me.

2) Not mindlessly swallowing elaborate, unscientific speculation as gospel (i.e., not being a liberal) is a good thing. :mrgreen: