Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nakhui on February 20, 2004, 08:19:57 AM
-
What's with the liberals?
Not only did the US Intelligence community mislead President to think there were WMD in IRAQ.
Well, the GAO also mislead him President on the medicare costs associated with his "economic" policies.
Well gee!
Now it seems that prominent scientists and Nobel prize winners are also misleading our President.
President Bush's administration distorts scientific findings and seeks to manipulate experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political beliefs, a private organization of scientists asserted on Wednesday.
[Bush wouldn't do THAT! He's NEVER DISTORTED THE FACTS... NEVER...NEVER... NEVER!! It's the other people who lie to him! He's an honest man! He served in the ANG! Really he did!]
F. Sherwood Rowland, a Nobel prize winner for his studies of ozone in the atmosphere, was particularly critical of the administration's approach to climate change.
He said the consensus of scientific opinion about global warming is being ignored and that government reports have been censored to remove views not in tune with Bush's politics.
A 2003 report that the administration sought changes in an Environmental Protection Agency climate study, including deletion of a 1,000-year temperature record and removal of reference to a study that attributed some of global warming to human activity.
• A delay in an EPA report on mercury pollution from some power plants.
• A charge that the administration pressed the Centers for Disease Control to end a project called "Programs that Work," which found sex education programs that did not insist only on abstinence were still effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scientists.bush.ap/index.html
HEY YOU LIBERALS!
STOP SCREWING WITH THE PRESIDENT AND MAKING HIM LOOK STUPID!
IT's NOT HIS FAULT OTHER PEOPLE LIE TO HIM!
IT'S THE LIBERALS and their DIRTY TRICKS!
-
Global warming is the biggest piece of junk science ever invented, and only serves to give climatologists job security. Every voice that has spoken against it, to point out the poor science and shoddy statistical distortions, has been viciously attacked by those who benefit most from continued panic funding of ever-more obtuse computer modeling of this non-existent threat. Look at it this way:
Senator (to climatologist): We've heard that global warming might be a problem. Do you think it would be worth spending $2 Billion over the next decade to study the problem further?
Climatologist (presently unfunded): Sir, it is essential to the survival of the human race that we do so!
Senator: Right! Do you think $2 billion will be enough?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Global warming is the biggest piece of junk science ever invented, and only serves to give climatologists job security. Every voice that has spoken against it, to point out the poor science and shoddy statistical distortions, has been viciously attacked by those who benefit most from continued panic funding of ever-more obtuse computer modeling of this non-existent threat. Look at it this way:
Senator (to climatologist): We've heard that global warming might be a problem. Do you think it would be worth spending $2 Billion over the next decade to study the problem further?
Climatologist (presently unfunded): Sir, it is essential to the survival of the human race that we do so!
Senator: Right! Do you think $2 billion will be enough?
Since you explained it that way...all that science data recording the ever expanding hole in the ozone... the increased climate temperatures... the increased polution... the dieing of forests, life in streams, bays, lakes....etc..
Yep - that all sounds like junk science.
It must be greed which motivates scientists.... Brilliant arguement... just reduce everyone's motivation to something banal and it all makes sense!
I believe now!
Of course... scientists don't make as much money as say a CEO of Enron, Texico, Dupont, ADM.... They make what on average about 56k compared to 1 to 2 million a year for a top CEO?
Please name one 2 billion dollar research grant ever given out by Congress for the study of global warming.
Go ahead! You seem to know so much about it.
-
rather spend 2 billion on clean air instead of 2 billion on guns and tanks....
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Since you explained it that way...all that science data recording the ever expanding hole in the ozone...
Go ahead! You seem to know so much about it.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/aozone92000.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm
http://www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd01/ozone.html
Another liberal PNW3D!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by SLO
rather spend 2 billion on clean air instead of 2 billion on guns and tanks....
Yeah, then when a barbaric muslim extremist cleric detonates a suitcase nuke, you can say "...but the air WAS clean!"
-
and that crazy extremeist will be from georgia..
-
Oh and how will a 2billion dollar plane going to stop a suitcase bomb rip?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Global warming is the biggest piece of junk science ever invented, and only serves to give climatologists job security.
Got your tin foil hat on? That's just as bad as chemtrial, and the moon landings being faked. :rolleyes:
-
"Three years after the Montreal Protocol established a phase-out program for CFCs. Concentrations of CFCs have started to decline.
"The ozone hole isn't going to go away for a long time," he said. "This is because the lifetimes of CFCs and HCFCs and halons are so long. We might be back to 1979 levels sometime around 2050 or so."
Go......team!
:p
-
Nakui, for starters you can look up the work of Soon and Baliunas, which shows that there is far better statistical and historical correlation between sun spot cycles and global temperatures than between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Soon and Baliunas confirmed that from 800 to 1300 A.D., average temperatures in many regions worldwide were 2 to 4 degrees or more higher than the allegedly sweltering 20th century. It’s referred to as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), and the extra warmth made life better, not worse. It is not only the arcane techniques of paleoclimatology, such as testing core samples of glacial ice for radioisotopes, that testify to the MWP, but history—such as people’s contemporary accounts of what they grew in their fields.
Why has the hypothesis of global warming persisted? Patrick J. Michaels—a climatologist, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, and author of The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming -- puts it this way: “No one in Washington gets large grants by saying something isn’t a problem. Meanwhile, the $10 billion thrown at climate modeling research in the last 15 years was wasted.” (Not all on one grant, but on many grants and programs).
Thomas Kuhn’s thinking from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: "Scientists have created a global-warming paradigm for themselves that benefits them—as a cause and as a livelihood. They won’t easily be dissuaded from it."
He further goes on to state that scientists tend to resist new information that upsets their paradigm till a new paradigm from a new generation finally supersedes it. In the meantime, when their hypotheses don’t work out, it’s typical to see them come up with more and more complicated explanations and lash out personally at their critics. We've seen it happen throughout history, as far back in time as Gallieo's. The same thing happens to scientists who question the theory of evolution, for example (but let's not go there now). Just as it happened here, when I questioned Nakui's belief in global warming.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, then when a barbaric muslim extremist cleric detonates a suitcase nuke, you can say "...but the air WAS clean!"
Assuming, of course, that such barbaric muslim extremist cleric actually has such a nuke....:)
-
"He further goes on to state that scientists tend to resist new information that upsets their paradigm till a new paradigm from a new generation finally supersedes it. In the meantime, when their hypotheses don’t work out, it’s typical to see them come up with more and more complicated explanations and lash out personally at their critics."
Oh geewiz where have we seen that recently?:rolleyes:
-
Does'nt one volcani eruption due more damage to the Ozone Layer than the entire human race has done since it's birth?
I remember reading this somewhere, but I cannot recall.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Does'nt one volcani eruption due more damage to the Ozone Layer than the entire human race has done since it's birth?
I remember reading this somewhere, but I cannot recall.
As do I, Muck, or something similar. The quote I remember is that the eruption of Krackatoa (forgive my spelling of the name) produced more greenhouse gasses than all the automobiles to date. Easy enough to find out. USGS site should have some info on volcanic eruptions, I'd suspect.
-
yea the depletion of the ozone layer has alot to do with greenhouse gasses. boy you guyz are the smart!
-
Global Warming = Cold Fusion
-
i would think canada would be in favor of global warming.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
yea the depletion of the ozone layer has alot to do with greenhouse gasses. boy you guyz are the smart!
Actually, my comment was about global warming, not ozone holes. I do not recall if volcanic eruptions cause any release of CFC-type gasses, which I believe have been blamed for the whole in the ozone layer. I was merely commenting to Muck that I'd heard a similar statement to his. I also recall reading someplace that some scientists have found evidence that the hole in the ozone layer is a cyclicial thing as well. Given the fact that it appears that hole is closing, and that we've only been working on reducing CFC usage recently and sparotically (at least on a global scale), that makes sense. Some would have us believe that, even though it took almost two centuries of industrialized history to create the "hole," it took only a few years of sparodic reduction (reduction, not elimiation) to begin to reverse the damage.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/aozone92000.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm
http://www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd01/ozone.html
Another liberal PNW3D!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
You PNW3D your self... and it really makes you look out of touch because the links you choose are 4 years old.
PNW3D yourself too much and you'll go blind.
The ozone hole has grown since then.
How about something a little more current
Situation at 2003 August 27-British Antarctic Survey Ozone Bulletin
The ozone has grown rapidly and now covers some 23 million square kilometres, larger than it has ever been at this time in August. Very low ozone levels have been recorded over the Antarctic Peninsula. Temperatures in the ozone layer are low enough that Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) have formed widely over the continent.
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2003.htm
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/press_release_2003.html
But in any case, the point of the thread is Bush is removing statements of scientific fact from official government reports - because those facts dont' agree with what he "believes" is true.
Sounds much like religious zealots plugging their ears about sceince because it contradicts their theory of life.
Same ol' pattern from this Administration.
I guess the Nobel Prize winning scientists who are behind this are just greedy grant seeking liberals.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
I guess the Nobel Prize winning scientists who are behind this are just greedy grant seeking liberals.
Yes, only politicians lie. As a matter of fact, only republican politicians lie. Scientists would never lie, or distort fact, or sway statistics to make sure they get that grant, or that speaking gig, etc.
I mean after all, once you win the Nobel prize, you're no longer human and therefore immune to human nature.
Come on.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Yes, only politicians lie. As a matter of fact, only republican politicians lie. Scientists would never lie, or distort fact, or sway statistics to make sure they get that grant, or that speaking gig, etc.
I mean after all, once you win the Nobel prize, you're no longer human and therefore immune to human nature.
Come on.
But what are we talking about here?
Not human nature and not lies.
The credibility of a scientist is in that his/her opinions are backed up by facts which are proveable and verifiable by independent investigation.
Distorting the facts and out right lying will only eventually lead to a scientist's outing as a charlatan and a quack. Once that happens no other scientist and the scientific community in general would never take that scientist seriously again - let alone employ him/her for any serious work.
Politicians conjecture, orate, envision, and establish policies. (and schtoop secretaries, interns and congressional pages)...and yes distort the truth all the time... entirely different beasts.
The facts the EPA attempted to publish which the Bush Administration removed from the report - are facts, proven, verifiable, well known, irrefutable, accepted by experts as true facts. For a politician such as Bush to just dismiss facts...because they disprove his point of view.. well... what does that say about him?
He doesn't do math?
-
Philip Morris can produce scientists and doctors that will tell you there is no comclusive evidence linking Smoking to Lung Cancer.
Scientists are not gods. They are human. They're prone to mistakes, greed, ambition and deceipt, just like the rest of us.
-
Global warming is the biggest piece of junk science ever invented, and only serves to give climatologists job security
so why is it currently +10 in the middle of febuary??? IT SHOULD BE AT LEAST -15 LIKE IT HAS FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS...natural earth warming doesnt cause that kind of jump...
poor science and shoddy statistical distortions,
hmm...so its wrong to assume theres a problem when if you look at the tempurature recordings from anywhere since the invention of the thermometer have gone up more since the mid 1800s than a similar time period before?
-
I don't know where you live but in New York, we've had the coldest winter in 40 years.
*shurgs*
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Philip Morris can produce scientists and doctors that will tell you there is no comclusive evidence linking Smoking to Lung Cancer.
Scientists are not gods. They are human. They're prone to mistakes, greed, ambition and deceipt, just like the rest of us.
Come on... you can come up with a better arguement than that.
Sure you can pay someone to say anything you like.
And if they are lying... they'll be proven wrong.
Last I remember PM and the rest of the tobacco industry have been loosing their lawsuits in court, because the facts are against them.
The Facts have been against them for decades now.
They and their scientists have been discredited over and over again... no one believes what they say.
In fact...remember the movie "the Insider" with Russel Crowe. It's a true story about a scientist, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, who worked for the tobacco industry and he knew the truth that the tobacco industry had a process which would increase the nicotine in ciggarrettes to get people addicted. He went to 60 minutes and esposed it.
My point is that a scientist who tells a lie will get exposed and eventually discredited.
Science is about facts - not opinion, not greed, not human nature.
Back to the point... Bush is removing scientific facts from government publications because they are contrary to his opinion.
And the scientists involved are pointing this out.
This administration has a pattern of behavior of denying the truth and telling lies.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Philip Morris can produce scientists and doctors that will tell you there is no comclusive evidence linking Smoking to Lung Cancer.
Scientists are not gods. They are human. They're prone to mistakes, greed, ambition and deceipt, just like the rest of us.
And many have political agendas of their own. Anyone can become a scientist. The process of becoming one does not purge the person of any of the human failings. Some, as in any endeavor, are in it for mostly noble and altrustic reasons, but a good many are in it to make money and become famous. I read the CNN article you site. It is not nearly as damning in total as you have people believe. It does not state why, for instance the 1000-year record temperature reference was removed or downplayed, nor who specifically did so. It is not the end of the story, but only a beginning. Look beyond it. From that same article:
White House science adviser John Marburger said he found the report "somewhat disappointing ... because it makes some sweeping generalizations about policy in this administration that are based on a random selection of incidents and issues."
And more:
F. Sherwood Rowland, a Nobel prize winner for his studies of ozone in the atmosphere, was particularly critical of the administration's approach to climate change.
He said the consensus of scientific opinion about global warming is being ignored and that government reports have been censored to remove views not in tune with Bush's politics.
The union's report came at the same time the National Academy of Science was releasing its own study that commends the administration's plan to study climate but also expresses concern that the research was underfunded and not being pursued vigorously enough.
Asked if they had seen any political interference in the climate program, Thomas E. Graedel of Yale University, chairman of the academy committee, said his group did not look for that. But, he added, he had not seen anything that would suggest the research plan had such political concerns.
Note that Mr. Rowland uses the term "consensus of scientific opinion", but does not qualify it. How big of a consensus, 25-75, 49-51, what? Could it be it was left out because they felt the conclusions reached were not solid enough to support drastic changes in government policy?
And the scientists involved are pointing this out.
No, the Union of Concerned Scientists pointed it out. Which ones were actually involved in any of the reports mentioned in the article?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I don't know where you live but in New York, we've had the coldest winter in 40 years.
*shurgs*
exactly why the overall global average hasnt really changed much...rather than proper averages you have a whole bunch of wonky things all over the place but overall you have the same thing...it doesnt take a high school graduate to realize that the weather is strange and its definatly not natural...global "warming" (i prefer global wonked weather...its more appropriate) can be proven just by looking outside and comparing what you see to the last several years of your life
-
Originally posted by vorticon
global "warming" ... can be proven just by looking outside and comparing what you see to the last several years of your life
OMG STUNNING PROOF!!!
NEVAR FORGET TEH GLOBLE WRAMING!!!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
OMG STUNNING PROOF!!!
NEVAR FORGET TEH GLOBLE WRAMING!!!
Hey just think of what you can prove with a toaster and a stream of hot pee!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
OMG STUNNING PROOF!!!
NEVAR FORGET TEH GLOBLE WRAMING!!!
For the luv of God man take to Vegas and make a fortune!:aok
-
I recently read an article about pentagon military planners preparing a national emergency scenario where extreme climate changes occured over a very short period. Less than a decade, and the effects on the humans would be catosrophic. Seems mother nature has a switch that toggles very fast under certain conditions dealing with the temperature of ocean currents. Was a lengthy article but the bottom line was that a severe climate change could occur rapidly and be devastating.
Global warming and cooling is cyclic and has happened dozens of times over the past billion years. Human civilization has inhabited the planet for a mere fraction of the earths history.
Global warming/cooling is a fact. Its impact could bring about the long talked about culling of the herd, so to speak.
Where does our Lord and savior fit into this picture?
-
Rip, you seriously believe that the billions of automobiles, smokestacks, smelters, and other things of the like that never existed prior to two centuries ago will not have an effect on the climate of the earth?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
...Some would have us believe that, even though it took almost two centuries of industrialized history to create the "hole," it took only a few years of sparodic reduction (reduction, not elimination) to begin to reverse the damage.
The thing I dislike the most about these arguments is the misinformation that gets posted and spread. Not to pick on Sabre, but the first patent on a CFC formula was issued to Frigidaire on Dec 31, 1928. "Freon" was the tradename for the first widely used CFC refrigerant. After WWII, CFCs were used extensively as propellants in aerosol products. Its more likely that the damage to the ozone layer occurred in recent decades, not over a period of two centuries as you suggest.
And Vorticon, as tempting as it is to use our own senses and experience to determine there is a problem, we are rather like the blind mice trying to describe the elephant. Temperature and weather patterns change over centuries, we simply cannot look at the weather in our locales over the past few years and make accurate assessments on global warming.
It's sad, but there doesn't seem to be any pure, untainted science. But in the battle for minds and opinions, who should we believe-- a group of scientists concerned about the environment, or politicians funded by billionaires? My mind isn't made up on the matter but I am leaning more toward the group that benefits the least financially.
-
No problem, Oboe. I don't feel picked on by your comment. Indeed, it reinforces the argument that the use of junk science runs rampant when it comes to how public policy is formulated, on both sides of the isle. My original post was in reference to global warming, a different enviromental panic button than the ozone hole, but junk science has played a role on both sides of both issues.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Does'nt one volcani eruption due more damage to the Ozone Layer than the entire human race has done since it's birth?
I remember reading this somewhere, but I cannot recall.
Originally posted by Sabre
As do I, Muck, or something similar. The quote I remember is that the eruption of Krackatoa (forgive my spelling of the name) produced more greenhouse gasses than all the automobiles to date. Easy enough to find out. USGS site should have some info on volcanic eruptions, I'd suspect.
Krakatau, 1883.
The most destructive explosion on Earth in the last 10,000 years was the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia. Tambora erupted on April 10, 1815 and sent 12 cubic miles of gases, dust and rock 25 miles into the atmosphere. Propelled by stratospheric winds, the cloud of sulferic acid, ash, and dust encircled the Earth and blocked sunlight, affecting global climate for three years.
In the United States there was snowfall in Virginia in June, and freezing temperatures in July. In Europe and Great Britian far more than the normal amout of rain fell. It rained for 8 weeks nonstop in Ireland, causing the potato crop to fail.
Short term global cooling.
Krakatau got all the attention because it erupted in 1883, after the invention of the telegraph.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Oh and how will a 2billion dollar plane going to stop a suitcase bomb rip?
By blowing up the c*cks*ckers home when he is in it, because our intelligence was PROPERLY funded and was able to catch on before he left to execute the mission.
Gobal Warming is bull$h1T. There is proof of warm and cold cycles over the last 200 years.
-
But what if those cycles were altered by the 100000% increase in man-made emissions?
Whatever, lets just hope everything turns out alright. Much better plan.
-
By the way, you cannot stop terrorism. There will always be a way.
-
I agree completely, Sabre. Junk science is used by both sides on an issue. I think its a serious problem, not only because it makes it so difficult to pick through the clutter and try to find the truth, but because junk science demeans and weakens the reputation and credibility of science in general.
Bodhi, no sensible person denies the existence of global warming and cooling cycles over history (who can deny there was an Ice Age?). I think the main fear is that manmade emissions will collect in high enough concentrations in the atmosphere that they will permanently affect the natural cycles. That is, climate patterns may shift more rapidly than normal, be more extreme than normal and may be permanent rather than temporary (recognizing even a natural temporary pattern change could be longer than our lifetimes).
How it would affect you depends on where you live. I live in Minnesota, and I remember after a particularly frigid two week period years ago, I formed the group "Minnesotans for Global Warming". It never got off the ground, but my plan was to drive around the metro area in a parade of SUVs, spraying aerosol cans out the windows. I think the cold weather had affected my thinking, as I also thought the Herschel Walker trade was a brilliant move on the part of Vikings' general manager Mike Lynn and that the NorthStars wouldn't dare leave Minnesota. I was wrong on every count.
-
Global warming is directly related to the huge sucking vortex created by sudo-scientists sucking on Government largess....