Major report on Climate Change exposes Republican lies on Global Warming

[freedom78]

American Conservative = an insistence that evolution did not happen, while simultaneously doing everything possible to ensure that humans are its next casualty

American Liberal = an insistence that evolution happens, while simultaneously doing everything possible to ensure that it is not allowed to take its course

God, I love this country.    <----------Is that supposed to be Nixon?

[The Dog]

I admit I havent watched Al Gore's Movie simply cause I dont like One Sided Documentaries. If he had both sides represented and let the viewer decide for themselves what they believe I would watch it, but I don't like hearing just one side.

Does anyone debate the findings of the earth heating up only .3 to .6 degrees since 1850? Hanna U say they haven't released the new data so why the hell is everyone up in arms over this then?

maybe they havent released the new data cause the new data isnt scary enough to freak people out?

I think its kinda silly of you to judge/question/criticize a movie you haven't even seen.  Gore does a great job of explaining both sides in the movie, yes he has an agenda and an opinion, but he doesn't just say his side and not tak about the skeptics/critics POV - he does both.  You should check out the movie, its very good and might dispell some of the misconceptions you seem to have.

as for the new findings - there you go again making assumptions - let the new data come out before you critcize it. 

[pilferk]

Actually, you don't get it.  The same reason you think the Administration should not be trusted is the same reason that the UN should not be trusted.

Again, there is a fundamental difference between US governement funded studies and UN funded studies.  There's a difference between the selection process, the methodologies required, AND the parameters to recieve full funding from the grants.

I will tell you, having been involved in both types of studies, and both processes, that the US governments policies and guidlines leave MUCH more room for "abuse".  I'm not saying, by any stretch, that the US government USES those loopholes....I've never seen that happen at the institutional level....but the guidlines leave the possibility open.  For example, unlike the UN guidlines, the US govt study audit process requires you submit your findings WITH your study audit data.  It leaves open the possibility that they could terminate, or withhold, your funding based on your results.  Again, I've never seen it happen, but it can.  In the case of UN funded studies, the "writer of the checks" only sees your audit data...not your results.  Those are passed on to a completely seperate entity.

People keep talking about politics.  The study, and it's validity, has nothing to do with them, whatsoever, and are being used as a convenient excuse to dismiss the findings out of turn....without having any idea that the dismissal being made makes no sense.

[pilferk]

The cooling of the Earth they found in 60's was leading to another massive Ice Age. Oops. Guess they had their results upside down.

Once again, we're leaving what is called "the Little Ice Age". The warming of the Earth is 100% natural. As is the cooling of the Earth.

99.9% of EVERYTHING that has EVER lived on this planet is gone.....guess who's gonna join them?? We are!! We're going away. The Earth will renew itself, clean the air and the water, and new species with emerge and thrive....and we won't leave much of a trace behind.

We get it.  Really, we do.  We're just temporary residents on this planet.

But it behooves US to try to lengthen our stay on this planet rather than sitting idly by and  watching it all pass before us.  If everyone lived their lives based on the tenets you're espousing......the entire human race would have long passed into oblivion.

[SLCPUNK]

The peak of Mount Kilimanjaro in northeastern Tanzania, October 31, 2005. The mountain has become an icon for environmental campaigners, with scientists predicting that the mountain's glaciers will vanish within the next twenty years because of global warming.


1 hour, 22 minutes ago

OSLO (Reuters) - Thirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases, a 46-country survey showed on Monday.

The report, by ACNielsen of more than 25,000 Internet users, showed that 57 percent of people around the world considered global warming a "very serious problem" and a further 34 percent rated it a "serious problem."

"It has taken extreme and life-threatening weather patterns to finally drive the message home that global warming is happening and is here to stay unless a concerted, global effort is made to reverse it," said Patrick Dodd, the President of ACNielsen Europe.

People in Latin America were most worried while U.S. citizens were least concerned with just 42 percent rating global warming "very serious."

The United States emits about a quarter of all greenhouse gases, the biggest emitter ahead of China, Russia and India.

Thirteen percent of U.S. citizens said they had never heard or read anything about global warming, the survey said.

Almost all climate scientists say that temperatures are creeping higher because of heat-trapping greenhouse gases released by burning fossil fuels.

The study also found that 91 percent of people had heard about global warming and 50 percent reckoned it was caused by human activities.

A U.N. report due on Friday is set to say it is at least 90 percent probable that human activities are the main cause of warming in the past 50 years.

People in China and Brazil were most convinced of the link to human activities and Americans least convinced.

The survey said that people living in regions vulnerable to natural disasters seemed most concerned -- ranging from Latin Americans worried by damage to coffee or banana crops to people in the Czech Republic whose country was hit by 2002 floods.

In Latin America, 96 percent of respondents said they had heard of global warming and 75 percent rated it "very serious."

Most industrial nations have signed up for the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which imposed caps on emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from factories, power plants and vehicles.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, but said last week that climate change was a "serious challenge."

[Surfrider]

Actually, you don't get it.? The same reason you think the Administration should not be trusted is the same reason that the UN should not be trusted.

Again, there is a fundamental difference between US governement funded studies and UN funded studies.? There's a difference between the selection process, the methodologies required, AND the parameters to recieve full funding from the grants.

I will tell you, having been involved in both types of studies, and both processes, that the US governments policies and guidlines leave MUCH more room for "abuse".? I'm not saying, by any stretch, that the US government USES those loopholes....I've never seen that happen at the institutional level....but the guidlines leave the possibility open.? For example, unlike the UN guidlines, the US govt study audit process requires you submit your findings WITH your study audit data.? It leaves open the possibility that they could terminate, or withhold, your funding based on your results.? Again, I've never seen it happen, but it can.? In the case of UN funded studies, the "writer of the checks" only sees your audit data...not your results.? Those are passed on to a completely seperate entity.

People keep talking about politics.? The study, and it's validity, has nothing to do with them, whatsoever, and are being used as a convenient excuse to dismiss the findings out of turn....without having any idea that the dismissal being made makes no sense.

You seem to be much more knowledgeable about the subject than I am.  Although we disagree on certain things, I respect you as a poster, and I believe that you generally post based on thought and fact rather than partisanship.  I will take your word on the distinction and the legitimacy of the study. 

[pilferk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

Intersting, no?  Given our discussion here.

Just thought I'd add it a link to the article to stir up some further discussion.

Just FYI...I'm not too impressed with the findings of this "survey".  It's interesting discussion points, but the manner in which it was conducted, and the relatively low % of respondants, pretty much calls it's findings into question.

Which isn't to say the findings might not be in line with what actually occurs.....just that they aren't very well founded.

[The Dog]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

Intersting, no?  Given our discussion here.

Just thought I'd add it a link to the article to stir up some further discussion.

Just FYI...I'm not too impressed with the findings of this "survey".  It's interesting discussion points, but the manner in which it was conducted, and the relatively low % of respondants, pretty much calls it's findings into question.

Which isn't to say the findings might not be in line with what actually occurs.....just that they aren't very well founded.

This:
The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.

and this:
    * 43 percent of respondents reported edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their findings.
    * 46 percent felt administrative requirements that impaired climate-related work.
    * 67 percent said the environment for federal government climate research is worse now than five years ago.

I find disturbing.  I don't think the issue of global warming itself is political, but, as Gore says, it's a moral issue - but when you read stuff like this it makes you wonder if the people in charge of our country are aware of that.

Sadly, it doesn't seem that way.  Until EVERY politician, from BOTH parties cuts loose the chains of their coroporate masters, this country will be headed in the wrong direction.

[pilferk]

This:
The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.

and this:
    * 43 percent of respondents reported edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their findings.
    * 46 percent felt administrative requirements that impaired climate-related work.
    * 67 percent said the environment for federal government climate research is worse now than five years ago.

I find disturbing.  I don't think the issue of global warming itself is political, but, as Gore says, it's a moral issue - but when you read stuff like this it makes you wonder if the people in charge of our country are aware of that.

Sadly, it doesn't seem that way.  Until EVERY politician, from BOTH parties cuts loose the chains of their coroporate masters, this country will be headed in the wrong direction.

I agree, it's interesting discussion.  I just wish they'd not presented it the way they did.

The fact is that only about 132 respondants reported edits....of the 1600 involved.   They cite 43%..but that's of the people that RESPONDED.  I'm not sure we can make the correlation that, if more of the sample responded, that % would have held out.  With this type of survey (mail in), the bias of respondants is a well documented issue....usually those responding "have something to say", if you know what I mean.

Ditto on the 46% (really 141 people).

The 67% is more compelling because that means about 207 respondants, or about 13% of the 1600 scientists, feel that way.

Again, I'm not sure the study DOESN'T reflect what actually occurs, but their methodology just makes their numbers shaky.  And that's too bad because it takes away from the point they're trying to make.....

[Gordon Gekko]

Some folks are not interested in science, science for them is a political matter. The Earth is 3,000 years old. The sun spins around the Earth. The Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood, dinosaur fossils are planted by the Devil to trick us humans, and the Earth is slowly getting warmer because Christ is on his way back and he's got his Lake O' Fire on a slow simmer.

[SLCPUNK]

 DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 1, 6:29 AM ET

OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President
Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party to nominate Gore as well as Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier before the nomination deadline expired Thursday.

"Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila works from the ground up," Brende said.

During eight years as
Bill Clinton's vice president, Gore pushed for climate measures, including for the Kyoto Treaty. Since leaving office in 2001 he has campaigned worldwide, including with his Oscar-nominated documentary on climate change called "An Inconvenient Truth."

Norwegian lawmakers are among the thousands of people and groups with rights to nominate Nobel candidates. Others include members of national governments, past laureates, members of the awards committee and its staff, and many university professors.

The winner is traditionally announced in mid-October, with the prize always presented on the Dec. 10 anniversary of the death of its creator, Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel.

[freedom78]

I've no problem with him winning a  Nobel Prize, but how, exactly, do they connect Gore's anti-global warming stance with the PEACE prize? 

This highlights a major problem with the Nobel prizes.  They were too stubborn about the categories, so when someone does something important, they have to cram it into an existing category. 

[Prometheus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329703480-117700,00.html

"Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. 
Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. 
"It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. 
It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. 
However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming."