My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Cedars]

Additionally, I would point out that the statements made by Hansen, while he did state they were his personal views and not representative of Goddard, the other part of that is, he shouldnt be using my tax dollars to give personal opinions and coordinating his meetings via Goddard staff. Hes entitled to an opinion, he can do it on his own time.

 

As far as those claiming to feel their press releases had to convey an image, too bad. If their science wasnt altered they have no complaint other than they didnt get the headline they thought they deserved on the nasa press release page. Again, a matter of personal opinion that has no relevance towards the science they published in Journals.

[REASON]

What in the world! :phones:

 

Is someone suggesting that the Bush Administration and their Senior Officials at NASA, were interfering with the inner workings and editing of NASA Public Affairs press releases regarding climate science for the purpose of directing the image portrayed to the public to be more in line with Administration policy?

 

This is shocking. It can't be true.

 

I was sure that they had only been doing this with the Justice Department, the Department of Defense, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security (FEMA), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Education, and of course, the CIA.

 

Not NASA. :rolleyes:

 

Well at least they're denying it. :cheer:

[InfiniteNow]

Additionally, I would point out that the statements made by Hansen, while he did state they were his personal views and not representative of Goddard, the other part of that is, he shouldnt be using my tax dollars to give personal opinions and coordinating his meetings via Goddard staff. Hes entitled to an opinion, he can do it on his own time.

I suggest that, if you truly believe your comment above about his ability to speak at meetngs and conferences "on his own time," you should review The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which was being used and misapplied in this case.

 

You will find that he was NOT able to speak without the express permission of the offices, which makes this even more nefarious since the aforementioned act was CLEARLY not intended for such purposes pertaining to global warming research, knowledge, and expert opinion being disseminated to the public.

 

 

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended)

 

 

This was his job, and they actively prevented him from doing it with their misapplication of the act above.

 

 

Policy or Politics? NASA Accused of Intimidating Climatologist

"I have no intention of being a Steve Schneider-type person who spends his time talking about climate impact or climate policy," Hansen said. Schneider is the often-quoted Stanford University climate scientist who achieved notoriety for telling Discover magazine in a 1989 interview that climatologists wanting to get their point across to an indifferent public needed "to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have" about the causes and consequences of global warming.

 

Hansen said that as the director of one of the United States' three premiere climate-modeling centers, he has an obligation to speak out about what the data say about globally warming.

 

The NASA mission statement says 'to understand and protect our home planet'," Hansen said. "If I didn't speak out on this issue I wouldn't be doing my job."

[freeztar]

I'd like to echo InfiniteNow's gratitude for posting the original documents. It's always best to get it from the source (I echo your media concerns as well).

 

Again, a matter of personal opinion that has no relevance towards the science they published in Journals.

 

The difference being that I cannot access private journals without paying money, or finding them at a Uni.

 

I regret the way I worded my introduction to the posting of the article by the AP. Turtle rightfully called me out on it. You've echoed that Cedars.

 

I don't believe that the actual science was influenced (per the investigations claims). I am suspicious of the findings nonetheless.

 

I don't want my tax dollars spent on obfuscating the truth of the scientific findings, to the public which funded them. Surely, this concerns you as well?

 

I completely agree with the NASA policy of separating opinion from science.

 

It would not surprise me at all to find that some of the claims made in this report are factual, and some are fictional. I found it interesting that it was inter-agency and that the claims made ran all the way up the chain.

 

I also find it interesting, and appalling, that science has repeatedly been stifled by this current administration.

[Cedars]

The difference being that I cannot access private journals without paying money, or finding them at a Uni.

 

I don't believe that the actual science was influenced (per the investigations claims). I am suspicious of the findings nonetheless.

 

I don't want my tax dollars spent on obfuscating the truth of the scientific findings, to the public which funded them. Surely, this concerns you as well?

 

I completely agree with the NASA policy of separating opinion from science.

 

It would not surprise me at all to find that some of the claims made in this report are factual, and some are fictional. I found it interesting that it was inter-agency and that the claims made ran all the way up the chain.

 

I also find it interesting, and appalling, that science has repeatedly been stifled by this current administration.

 

I agree with you 100% on the gov studies being released to pay-per-view access. I hate it. But this is not a Bush admin issue, its a government wide issue that existed long before Bush swore his oath of office. I know the MN DNR (and probably more branches) allows this to occur and I also remember when this began and why they allowed it. The reasons given to MN taxpayers was to 'attract educated people' to these jobs. They reasoned if biologists, ecologist, etc could make money, publish science in their names, they would apply for state jobs, enhancing the quality of employees. Same thing with university drug studies and patents in medicine (most university med research).

 

Agreed on some being factual, some fictional. I just didnt find anything unusual (based on my own limited gov employee experiences). I also remember a recent case with a PCA employee (pollution control agency) whos one study came to a different conclusion than multiple studies done by different people, over many years. She over-reacted and went screaming to the press (and her representitives) insisting that the government shut down wells for 60K people. Later reviews of her work found flaws (or something like that). If I didnt have the personal experience with ppm, and the ability to google compounds and look at further data, I would have been alarmed by what the media represented. And I can see why the PCA wanted to do further investigations before causing this kind of alarm and burden on resources.

 

And I can see why Goddard or NASA or whatever particular agency Public Affairs reacted to Hansen as they did. I also saw it was reviewed and changed within a reasonable amount of time (less than 30 days). And I also saw some complaints that were...hmmm the right word escapes me but pissy works well. Inserting a small sentence about how ocean currents and wind changes may be applied in space and the exploration of other planets seemed to me to be true and is hardly a crime against science. After all we dont always know how science will be used, and its often used in ways never imagined by the original discoverer.

 

While there have been accusations/instances of science being influenced by Bush admin persons (such as endangered species listings) it does not seem to be the case here.

 

Political appointee positions can suck for the employees under them. Election results can change a branch of government so much that employees leave before their 20 years to retirement is complete. But thats a personal decision revolving around the ability to adapt to a changing work environment.

 

And if you've never worked for a sob, you just havent enough job experience yet. :hihi:

[Moontanman]

I just got this rather emotional e-mail a few minutes ago. I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

From: "Weigand, Gregory L"

Great article.

 

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas, by John Coleman the founder of The Weather Channel but is no longer affiliated with it.

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his

global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline,

because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four

dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire

Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist's attack on

fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science,

international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the

future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in

the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants

is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a

scam.

...

Here is my rebuttal.

 

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any

in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the

future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But

mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the

natural forces.

...

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your

science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated.

And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not

have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

...

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of

our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and

emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger

photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we

create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally

occurring invisible gas.

 

...

I suspect you haven't heard it because the mass media did not report it,

but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May

20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who

refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000

are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the

supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five

hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global

warming.

...

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp

out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying

our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

[REASON]

All that blathering on and he presents no evidence, points to no experiments, offers no references, and displays no data. So he says he spent a lot of time going through the work of real scientists, and has come to the conclusion that they're wrong. I guess we are just supposed to take his opinion on faith. Actually, people of faith, for whom this message is really directed, are supposed to take his opinion on faith. They're already used to doing that sort of thing and the clues throughout the piece that this message is appealing to a conservative mindset is unmistakable.

 

If he really wants to know what's causing the dramatic spikes in gas prices maybe he should look into the Enron Loophole that was built in to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and the rampant increase in hedging and speculation in the market place that has followed. This piece of legislation was sponsered by Republican Phil Gramm of Texas, and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

 

The fact is there's no evidence of fuel shortages due to dramatic increases in demand. Take a look around, has anyone had any difficulty finding a gas station that hasn't runout of gas?

 

How ironic is it that this jackass thinks taking away his precious oil is what will destroy his way of life? Like there just aren't any viable alternatives.

 

Are we willing to make any adjustments at all to our way of life in the event that the science is right on this one? Or are we going to follow the opinion of this moron whose selfish interests in behalf of energy conglomerates are blatent?

 

What a shame! :)

[Flying Binghi]

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country

for decades. It was the environmentalist's prime force in blocking any

drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any

new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent

gasoline prices soaring

 

I'd be interested to know a bit more about this claim. Any references?

[Zythryn]

He, unfortunately, provides no references.

However, since the issue of GW really hasn't had much backing until after 2000 or so, I would hardly blame GW as an issue for not building refineries in the late 70s, 80s or 90s.

 

Hey throws a lot of tasty insults around and commits a whole slew of logical fallacies.

 

There is one nugget of good information in the email. That is that the entire AGW issue boils down to CO2 and its effects in the climate.

It is amazing that he mentions he has seen numerous studies showing CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, yet he fails to mention them.

He must have had limited space for his email (what... what is that... it is HOW long... oh um never mind then).

 

I agree that if you can show CO2 does not absorb heat, AGW falls apart. So if this single linchpin could totally wipe out the theory, why hasn't anyone successfully done so?

[Moontanman]

I'm not sure either about the connection with GW and lack of refineries. While it is true that lack of refineries is contributing to gas prices the reason we don't have is they pollute big time, and no one wanted them in their town or area. NIMBY effect. that's why people in southern California can drive across the border and by gas at almost half the current US price. speculators have to shoulder at least part of the blame for high gas prices, OIL is not disappearing right now, the countries that produce it are limiting their production and countries like India and China are buying more this produces a demand greater than supply situation where the prices climb sharply. Simple economics not GW scare.....

[freeztar]

Very good points MTM.

 

I'd also like to add that building solar arrays and such is a much better long-term solution than building more refineries. The side benefits of this, besides energy independence, is cleaner air and less CO2 being emitted.

[Thunderbird]

While in the US Navy 80's when we would aproach any industrailized contenent long before you sighted land you could tell the direction by simply looking at the horizon. It would be a yellowish brown tint lefting into the sky above. You do not notice the smell unless you have been out to sea for a while.

[Moontanman]

Very good points MTM.

 

I'd also like to add that building solar arrays and such is a much better long-term solution than building more refineries. The side benefits of this, besides energy independence, is cleaner air and less CO2 being emitted.

 

I'm not sure I understand, how building more solar arrays is going to provide more and cheaper gasoline? How will they help me drive to the store or to the beach? Refineries are for gasoline not electricity. I know we need better sources of electricity (see modern nuclear power plants) but this doesn't help people who already own gasoline powered vehicles. Very long term we might go to electric or even hydrogen but I can't buy a new electric car nor can most people.

[freeztar]

I'm not sure I understand, how building more solar arrays is going to provide more and cheaper gasoline? How will they help me drive to the store or to the beach? Refineries are for gasoline not electricity. I know we need better sources of electricity (see modern nuclear power plants) but this doesn't help people who already own gasoline powered vehicles. Very long term we might go to electric or even hydrogen but I can't buy a new electric car nor can most people.

 

You answered your own question. ;)

That's why I qualified my statement with "long-term". Also, I was speaking in the context of the thread topic. It would be all to easy to drift into a discussion on gas prices (that might make a good thread though :phones: ).

[Little Bang]

Moon, that email does illustrate one important aspect of human nature. We sometimes defend what we want the truth to be with rhetoric that excludes the real truth.

[Turtle]

Moon, that email does illustrate one important aspect of human nature. We sometimes defend what we want the truth to be with rhetoric that excludes the real truth.

 

That's an axe that cuts both ways. As no one else has seen fit to bring this bit forward here, I'll do 'er. :phones:

 

...When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature' date=' they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.

 

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.

...

While the paper's two peer reviewers, both climate model experts, agreed that the issue is a legitimate one, Spencer knows the new paper will be controversial, with some claiming that the impact of the mix-up between cause and effect will be small. ...[/quote']UAHuntsville News

[Zythryn]

Not really the same thing Turtle.

I didn't see any name calling or lack of references there.

It was a well spelled out position with a nice summary of a full paper.

I look forward to the peer reviewed article when it becomes available.