White house oppressing global warming scientists

[Sauwan]

U.S. scientists felt pressured to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday."Our investigations found high-quality science struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
A survey by the group found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.

More here

Well why would they do that?

 

[agaglio]

Jeesh I dunno, or care for that matter. It has been proved so many times that there have been warming cycles for millions of years; before man.

 

[Sauwan]

Jeesh I dunno, or care for that matter. It has been proved so many times that there have been warming cycles for millions of years; before man.

The end of that sentence gave me a headache...fyi.

Do you find this odd?

 

[Dezaad]

Jeesh I dunno, or care for that matter. It has been proved so many times that there have been warming cycles for millions of years; before man.

OMG. You sanction the suppression of science, the suppression of people's honest expression, because you disagree with its conclusions?

 

[agaglio]

OMG. You sanction the suppression of science, the suppression of people's honest expression, because you disagree with its conclusions?

First of all, posting another link about bush pressuring people to not use global warming is not proof that global warming is caused by man.

Second of all, honest expression is not a form of science.

Third of all, science has shown that there have been times in earth's history where global weather went through a cycle of warmth. Temperatures higher than those we are facing today were reached, and man wasn't around yet.

This thread is aimed to create false fear.

 

[jfuh]

First of all, posting another link about bush pressuring people to not use global warming is not proof that global warming is caused by man.

No, that the white house is censoring scientists or rather has censored information from scientists about global warming doesn't prove that global warming is caused by man. What it does prove is that the admin was silencing the scientists. Do you think that's right?

Second of all, honest expression is not a form of science.

Since when was it not?

Third of all, science has shown that there have been times in earth's history where global weather went through a cycle of warmth. Temperatures higher than those we are facing today were reached, and man wasn't around yet.

Yes and this following chart is also what science has shown us.

Proof positive that it is because of man's input that we're seeing the warming we are seeing today.
It shows of a clear cut between natural contributions. and anthropogenic contributions. You don't need to go back thousands of years to prove that indeed if natural systems were left the way they are without human input we would not be seeing the actual observational growth in global temps we are indeed seeing.
This graph clearly shows that the model itself remains an accurate representation of how the contributions exhibit on observed recorded data and comes to two unarguable conclusions.
1. Greenhouse gases effect planetary temperature fluctuations.
2. Without anthropogenic contributions of greenhouse gases temperatures should not be rising as they are especially in the past decade.

This thread is aimed to create false fear.

As I have shown, there's nothing false about it. By running away from the science and remaining oblivious, you are thus creating, amongst many of those of the opposition to the science, a false sense of security - that everything is AOK.

 

[agaglio]

No, that the white house is censoring scientists or rather has censored information from scientists about global warming doesn't prove that global warming is caused by man. What it does prove is that the admin was silencing the scientists. Do you think that's right?

No, I don't.

Since when was it not?

My honest expression is that this thread is the greatest thread to every be made! Was that science? no.

Yes and this following chart is also what science has shown us.

Where did you get the chart from?
Also, I would like to know how they decided what the temperature of the earth would be right now with out humans on it.

 

[Sauwan]

No, I don't.

There's a shocker.

My honest expression is that this thread is the greatest thread to every be made! Was that science? no.

Quit it. That hurts.

Where did you get the chart from?
Also, I would like to know how they decided what the temperature of the earth would be right now with out humans on it.

Your logic is phenomenal. How do scientists know there were dinosaurs on earth when there were no humans on it?:roll:

Do some research before you show us how ignorant you are again.

 

[Just Me 2]

While I disagree with suppressing any scientists, it has begun to come out that Global Warming is false. That the earth does go through cycles of warming and cooling. There are two new books out on this very topic.

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark

and

Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery

Pretty interesting read.

 

[Just Me 2]

Here is some more interesting information about global warming.

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

 

[1069]

While I disagree with suppressing any scientists, it has begun to come out that Global Warming is false.

You must live in some alternate reality. Or is it Opposite Day?

 

[Just Me 2]

You must live in some alternate reality. Or is it Opposite Day?

Ok let me rephrase. Nothing is going on with the earth that has not been going on for hundreds of years. Damn see now you just made me change my mood.

 

[jfuh]

My honest expression is that this thread is the greatest thread to every be made! Was that science? no.

Science is based on honest expression from what is observed.

Where did you get the chart from?

source

Also, I would like to know how they decided what the temperature of the earth would be right now with out humans on it.

Simple, you take out the net amount of greenhouse gases that are annually reported from consumption of fossil fuels. When you subtract that out, then you get that which is not affected by human input

 

[jfuh]

Ok let me rephrase. Nothing is going on with the earth that has not been going on for hundreds of years. Damn see now you just made me change my mood.

Then explain this.

Pay attention to the red and black lines and how the diverge in synchrony away from the blue line. Show me how that divergence is in anyway natural. Borrowing from my former post:
It shows of a clear cut between natural contributions. and anthropogenic contributions. You don't need to go back thousands of years to prove that indeed if natural systems were left the way they are without human input we would not be seeing the actual observational growth in global temps we are indeed seeing.
This graph clearly shows that the model itself remains an accurate representation of how the contributions exhibit on observed recorded data and comes to two unarguable conclusions.
1. Greenhouse gases effect planetary temperature fluctuations.
2. Without anthropogenic contributions of greenhouse gases temperatures should not be rising as they are especially in the past decade.

 

[Just Me 2]

Do some reading. There are plenty of scientists that say GWing is a natural process that the earth goes through . There are just as many saying it is false as there are saying it is true. Yes GWing is happening but it is not because of man it is the earth doing it's thing as it has for hundreds of years.

It is all about $$ the environmental groups don't want to lose their funding for projects that will NOT change what is happening. If they admit that GWing is a natural process they not only lose their tax dollars but most likely their jobs. You flash all these graphs how about doing some reading about the other side.

 

[jfuh]

Do some reading. There are plenty of scientists that say GWing is a natural process that the earth goes through . There are just as many saying it is false as there are saying it is true. Yes GWing is happening but it is not because of man it is the earth doing it's thing as it has for hundreds of years.

It is all about $$ the environmental groups don't want to lose their funding for projects that will NOT change what is happening. If they admit that GWing is a natural process they not only lose their tax dollars but most likely their jobs. You flash all these graphs how about doing some reading about the other side.

Again, the distinction is between GW and AGW. No credible scientists state that there is no AGW. For if there were you would've countered with a original paper by now as well as made arguments against the "fancy graph" I've "flashed".
Again with this same graph, tell me what is natural about the current trend as shown in black.

 

[Just Me 2]

Again, the distinction is between GW and AGW. No credible scientists state that there is no AGW. For if there were you would've countered with a original paper by now as well as made arguments against the "fancy graph" I've "flashed".
Again with this same graph, tell me what is natural about the current trend as shown in black.

Did you even read the links I posted?

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf


The Marshall Institute - A Scientific Discussion of Climate Change - Comments on

The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Testimony)

 

[Sauwan]

Here is some more interesting information about global warming.

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

Hahaha, check this site out:

[SIZE=+3]F[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]U[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]N[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]F[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]A[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]C[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]T[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]S[/SIZE][SIZE=+2] about CARBON DIOXIDE[/SIZE]

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

[SIZE=+1]If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate![/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=+3]T[/SIZE]he case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

First he goes and gives the "misleading statements about global warming and climate change" and then goes and criticizes those who do.

Yes, all those "fun facts" are true. (except the last) What he doesn't tell you is that the earth is in a balance. The fact is that the Earths oceans and plant life CANNOT recycle the excess CO2 we are putting out. It was in a balance, and we are throwing it out of balance. He even admits the CO2 concentration is at a point higher (almost double the previous high) than it has ever been in 600 thousand years at "368 parts per million".

This guy is either being paid to be intellectually dishonest, or just doesn't have any idea what the hell he's talking about.

 

[Just Me 2]

Hahaha, check this site out:



First he goes and gives the "misleading statements about global warming and climate change" and then goes and criticizes those who do.

Yes, all those "fun facts" are true. What he doesn't tell you is that the earth is in a balance. The fact is that the Earths oceans and plant life CANNOT recycle the excess CO2 we are putting out. It was in a balance, and we are throwing it out of balance. He even admits the CO2 concentration is at a point higher (almost double the previous high) than it has ever been in 600 thousand years at "368 parts per million".

This guy is either being paid to be intellectually dishonest, or just doesn't have any idea what the hell he's talking about.

Great out of 4 links filled with info that is what you cling to? :roll:

 

[Sauwan]

Let's go through the rest of your "sources":

The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Testimony)

Doesn't use a source of information past 1999. Not overly up to date...I probably wouldn't base my smoking choices based on scientific studies from the 50's...but that's just me.

The Marshall Institute - A Scientific Discussion of Climate Change - Comments on

From '97? Come on...Let's get something that isn't 10 years old.

 

[Sauwan]

Great out of 4 links filled with info that is what you cling to? :roll:

There are hundreds of pages of material on this debunking the "experts" who deny GW...

To be honest, I don't care to do it anymore. Read this if you care as to why.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment/17509-why-you-cannot-convince-some-gw.html

 

[agaglio]

There's a shocker.

You asked if I thought it was right, and I said no. So why the sarcasm?

Your logic is phenomenal. How do scientists know there were dinosaurs on earth when there were no humans on it?

You insult me, and then try to prove me illogical with an example that makes no sense and doesn't pertain to what we are talking about.

My question was not, "How did they know the temperature before humans were on earth?"

My question was:

I would like to know how they decided what the temperature of the earth would be right now with out humans on it.

Obviously, what I asked for was the equations they used and how they estimated what the temperature would be right now.

You tried to discredit me by proving me illogical but only ended up showing your stupidity.

Do some research before you show us how ignorant you are again.

I suggest that you read posts more thoroughly before you insult the poster.

Science is based on honest expression from what is observed.

Which is not what he claimed I was suppressing.

I quote the following from the source of your graph:

Beyond a few simple checks such as these, there are not too many ways to test the model, and projections of future climates must necessarily involve a degree of faith.

We operate under the faith that the real climate will fall among the projections made with the various models

I don't know about you, but I like basing my assertions on science-not faith.

 

[jfuh]

Did you even read the links I posted?

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf


The Marshall Institute - A Scientific Discussion of Climate Change - Comments on

The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Testimony)

None of which are scientific papers or peer reviewed or written by a credible scientist of the field. All simple propaganda by the industry (exxon funds Marshall institute) and neocon right (CATO Institute).
A question was posted to you. So again, what is natural about the divide we see in this graph.

 

[jamesrage]

More here

Well why would they do that?

For some reason that story sounds like a load of crap considering the fact we live in a country where traitorous journalist who reveal classified information and secret government programs get Pulitzers prizes instead of arrested and shot for treason.

 

[Sauwan]

For some reason that story sounds like a load of crap considering the fact we live in a country where traitorous journalist who reveal classified information and secret government programs get Pulitzers prizes instead of arrested and shot for treason.

:roll:Right.....