A statement from the American Geophysical Union

[Dan J 277]

If you actually read that guys links. He picked a small part of the report that supported his position and claimed that the entire report supported his position.

But then he is a PR guy, what do you expect?

[Craneman 2]

Who invited Algore anf the JUNK science boys here?

[GaryC 7]

Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age

Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science.

Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences, University of Southern California

Click here for more information.

Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records.

“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause.

The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate.

Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences at the University of Southern California, examines a sediment core.

Click here for more information.

“I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”

While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea.

The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago.

“What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2,” Stott said.

But where did this energy come from" Evidence pointed southward.

Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote.

This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence.

In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere’s ice retreat began.

Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source.

As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day.

In addition, the authors’ model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming.

The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth’s orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size.

However, this study suggests that the pace-keeper of ice sheet growth and retreat lies in the southern hemisphere’s spring rather than the northern hemisphere’s summer.

The conclusions also underscore the importance of regional climate dynamics, Stott said. “Here is an example of how a regional climate response translated into a global climate change,” he explained.

Stott and colleagues arrived at their results by studying a unique sediment core from the western Pacific composed of fossilized surface-dwelling (planktonic) and bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms.

These organisms – foraminifera – incorporate different isotopes of oxygen from ocean water into their calcite shells, depending on the temperature. By measuring the change in these isotopes in shells of different ages, it is possible to reconstruct how the deep and surface ocean temperatures changed through time.

If CO2 caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead.

“The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”

###

Stott’s collaborators were Axel Timmermann of the University of Hawaii and Robert Thunell of the University of South Carolina. Stott was supported by the National Science Foundation and Timmerman by the International Pacific Research Center.

Stott is an expert in paleoclimatology and was a reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also recently co-authored a paper in Geophysical Research Letters tracing a 900-year history of monsoon variability in India.

The study, which analyzed isotopes in cave stalagmites, found correlations between recorded famines and monsoon failures, and found that some past monsoon failures appear to have lasted much longer than those that occurred during recorded history. The ongoing research is aimed at shedding light on the monsoon’s poorly understood but vital role in Earth’s climate.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002191.html

[GaryC 7]

August 20, 2007

Rhodes Fairbridge and the Idea that the Solar System Regulates the Earth's Climate: A New Paper by Richard Mackey

Here is the abstract:

Rhodes Fairbridge died on 8th November, 2006. He was one of Australia’s most accomplished scientists and has

a special connection with Australia. In July, 1912 his father Kingsley established Fairbridge Village near Perth.

It contains a chapel of elegant simplicity designed by one of the world’s most famous architects of the time, Sir

Herbert Baker, as a labour of love to commemorate Kingsley. Rhodes is one of the few scientists to research the

sun/climate relationship in terms of the totality of the sun’s impact on the earth (i.e. gravity, the electromagnetic

force and output and their interaction). When the totality of the sun’s impact is considered, having regard to the

relevant research published over the last two decades, the influence of solar variability on the earth’s climate is

very strongly non-linear and stochastic. Rhodes also researched the idea that the planets might have a role in

producing the sun’s variable activity. If they do and if the sun’s variable activity regulates climate, then ultimately the planets may regulate it. Recent research about the sun/climate relationship and the solar inertial motion (sim) hypothesis shows a large body of circumstantial evidence and several working hypotheses but no satisfactory account of a physical sim process. In 2007 Ulysses will send information about the solar poles. This could be decisive regarding the predictions about emergent Sunspot Cycle No 24, including the sim hypothesis.

According to the sim hypothesis, this cycle should be like Sunspot Cycle No 14, and be followed by two that will

create a brief ice age. During the 1920s and ‘30s Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology published research about

the sun/climate relationship, especially Sunspot Cycle No 14, showing that it probably caused the worst drought

then on record.

And an extract from the paper:

"The earth’s atmosphere contains several major oscillating wind currents that have a key role in the regulation of the earth’s weather and climate. These wind currents include the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO); Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO); the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO); the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO); the Atlantic Multdecadal Oscillation (AMO); the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD); and the Arctic Oscillation (AO); and the northern and southern polar vortices, which are two permanent cyclones at the poles. FAGAN (1999), (2000) and (2004) has shown how the climate changes rendered by these global atmospheric systems have resulted in major historic changes to cultures and societies throughout the world since the dawn of history.

LABITZKE et al. (2005), COUGHLIN and KUNG (2004) and CORDERO and NATHAN (2005) report that the sunspot cycle drives these large-scale oscillating wind currents. For example, strength of the QBO circulation and the length of the QBO period varies directly with the sunspot cycle. COUGHLIN and KUNG (2004) also conclude that at a range of atmospheric heights and at all latitudes over the planet, the atmosphere warms appreciably during the maximum of the sunspot cycle, and cools during the minimum of the cycle.xix VAN LOON, MEEHL AND ARBLASTER (2004) established that in the northern summer (July to August), the major climatological tropical precipation maxima are intensified in solar maxima compared with solar minima during the period 1979 to 2002.

NUGROHO and YATINI 2006 report that the sun strongly influences the IOD during wet season in the monsoons climate pattern; that is, the December to February period. CAMP and TUNG (2006) found that a significant relationship exists between polar warming and the sunspot cycle. ZAITSEVA et al. (2003) found that the intensity of the NAO depends on solar activity. ABARCA DEL RIO et al. (2003) have found that the patterns of variation between indices of solar activity, the Atmospheric Angular Momentum index and Length of Day show that variations in solar activity are a key driver of atmospheric dynamics. The United States Geological Survey agency found that changes in total solar radiant output cause changes in regional precipitation, including floods and droughts in the Mississippi River basin.xx The tropical oceans absorb varying amounts of solar radiant output, creating ocean temperature variations.

These are transported by major ocean currents to locations where the stored energy is released into the atmosphere. As a result, atmospheric pressure is altered and moisture patterns are formed that can ultimately affect regional precipitation.

SCAFETTA et al.(2004) and SCAFETTA and WEST (2005) have found that the earth’s temperature periodicities, particularly those of the oceans, inherit the structure of the periodicity of solar activity. WHITE et al. (1997) and REID (1991) have found that the sunspot cycle produces periodicities in the oceans’ temmperatures. This research shows that sea surface temperatures in the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans, whether taken separately or combined, follow measures of solar radiant output derived from satellite observations and the sunspot record.

The sun’s separate impacts on the atmosphere and the ocean, and the complex non-linear interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean, is another process that amplifies the non-linear impact of the sun on our climate. Given that solar activity is a key determinant of ocean temperature, the decline on solar activity measured over the last decade should give rise in due course to a cooling of the oceans.

Read the full paper here: http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

[GaryC 7]

NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2003) — Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum."

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the sun's total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978. The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978 - 1993). Other records came from NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980 - 1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991 - 2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. The European Space Agency's (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set (1996 to 1998).

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.

NASA's ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 experiment began in 2000 and will extend the long-term solar observations into the future for at least a five-year minimum mission.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...30321075236.htm

[Craneman 2]

August 20, 2007

Rhodes Fairbridge and the Idea that the Solar System Regulates the Earth's Climate: A New Paper by Richard Mackey

Here is the abstract:

Rhodes Fairbridge died on 8th November, 2006. He was one of Australia’s most accomplished scientists and has

a special connection with Australia. In July, 1912 his father Kingsley established Fairbridge Village near Perth.

It contains a chapel of elegant simplicity designed by one of the world’s most famous architects of the time, Sir

Herbert Baker, as a labour of love to commemorate Kingsley. Rhodes is one of the few scientists to research the

sun/climate relationship in terms of the totality of the sun’s impact on the earth (i.e. gravity, the electromagnetic

force and output and their interaction). When the totality of the sun’s impact is considered, having regard to the

relevant research published over the last two decades, the influence of solar variability on the earth’s climate is

very strongly non-linear and stochastic. Rhodes also researched the idea that the planets might have a role in

producing the sun’s variable activity. If they do and if the sun’s variable activity regulates climate, then ultimately the planets may regulate it. Recent research about the sun/climate relationship and the solar inertial motion (sim) hypothesis shows a large body of circumstantial evidence and several working hypotheses but no satisfactory account of a physical sim process. In 2007 Ulysses will send information about the solar poles. This could be decisive regarding the predictions about emergent Sunspot Cycle No 24, including the sim hypothesis.

According to the sim hypothesis, this cycle should be like Sunspot Cycle No 14, and be followed by two that will

create a brief ice age. During the 1920s and ‘30s Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology published research about

the sun/climate relationship, especially Sunspot Cycle No 14, showing that it probably caused the worst drought

then on record.

And an extract from the paper:

"The earth’s atmosphere contains several major oscillating wind currents that have a key role in the regulation of the earth’s weather and climate. These wind currents include the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO); Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO); the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO); the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO); the Atlantic Multdecadal Oscillation (AMO); the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD); and the Arctic Oscillation (AO); and the northern and southern polar vortices, which are two permanent cyclones at the poles. FAGAN (1999), (2000) and (2004) has shown how the climate changes rendered by these global atmospheric systems have resulted in major historic changes to cultures and societies throughout the world since the dawn of history.

LABITZKE et al. (2005), COUGHLIN and KUNG (2004) and CORDERO and NATHAN (2005) report that the sunspot cycle drives these large-scale oscillating wind currents. For example, strength of the QBO circulation and the length of the QBO period varies directly with the sunspot cycle. COUGHLIN and KUNG (2004) also conclude that at a range of atmospheric heights and at all latitudes over the planet, the atmosphere warms appreciably during the maximum of the sunspot cycle, and cools during the minimum of the cycle.xix VAN LOON, MEEHL AND ARBLASTER (2004) established that in the northern summer (July to August), the major climatological tropical precipation maxima are intensified in solar maxima compared with solar minima during the period 1979 to 2002.

NUGROHO and YATINI 2006 report that the sun strongly influences the IOD during wet season in the monsoons climate pattern; that is, the December to February period. CAMP and TUNG (2006) found that a significant relationship exists between polar warming and the sunspot cycle. ZAITSEVA et al. (2003) found that the intensity of the NAO depends on solar activity. ABARCA DEL RIO et al. (2003) have found that the patterns of variation between indices of solar activity, the Atmospheric Angular Momentum index and Length of Day show that variations in solar activity are a key driver of atmospheric dynamics. The United States Geological Survey agency found that changes in total solar radiant output cause changes in regional precipitation, including floods and droughts in the Mississippi River basin.xx The tropical oceans absorb varying amounts of solar radiant output, creating ocean temperature variations.

These are transported by major ocean currents to locations where the stored energy is released into the atmosphere. As a result, atmospheric pressure is altered and moisture patterns are formed that can ultimately affect regional precipitation.

SCAFETTA et al.(2004) and SCAFETTA and WEST (2005) have found that the earth’s temperature periodicities, particularly those of the oceans, inherit the structure of the periodicity of solar activity. WHITE et al. (1997) and REID (1991) have found that the sunspot cycle produces periodicities in the oceans’ temmperatures. This research shows that sea surface temperatures in the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans, whether taken separately or combined, follow measures of solar radiant output derived from satellite observations and the sunspot record.

The sun’s separate impacts on the atmosphere and the ocean, and the complex non-linear interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean, is another process that amplifies the non-linear impact of the sun on our climate. Given that solar activity is a key determinant of ocean temperature, the decline on solar activity measured over the last decade should give rise in due course to a cooling of the oceans.

Read the full paper here: http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

I suppose you want the Noble Piece of pizza prize now?

[GaryC 7]

This isn't a study but a news story that shows just how much resistance to other points of view when GW in concerned.

EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to

‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic

During today’s hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

In a July 16, Washington Times article, Eckhart confirmed that he did indeed write the email.

After Senator Inhofe read Eckhart's comments, Johnson vowed to launch a probe concerning the threatening e-mail. Johnson responded to Inhofe saying, “I was not aware of this quote.” He continued, “Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors.” Johnson then added, “This is an area I will look into for the record.” (See YouTube video of exchange between Senator Inhofe and Johnson)

Senator Inhofe replied, “I would like to have you look into this and make an evaluation, talk it over with your people and see if it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement.”

Following the hearing, Senator Inhofe announced that he will be sending letters to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and EPA, urging them to “reconsider their membership in ACORE.”

Full Text of Eckhart’s July 13, 2007 e-mail to CEI’s Lewis:

Marlo –

You are so full of #######.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Mike

Michael T. Eckhart

President

American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...f&Issue_id=

[HAL 9000 96]

Where are the peer-reviewed parts?

Blog posts and Senate testimony from non-published journals are not necessarily peer-reviewed. Please stick to the program and not Google. Any quack can publish a blog or write a newsletter. Just look at VJ!

Maybe you should make your own commentaries to each paragraph you post showing your analysis and interpretation before you expect others to follow a point of view that continues to come from the same handful of scientists that time and time again have failed to stand up to the standards of the scientific peer-review process.

Don't take up bandwith trying to say the same thing over and over without an actual understanding of what you post.

And.. you could also read a little more... like its been suggested... one... two... three... X times over.

You want me to spoon feed it to you? Follow the link. That page links to every one of the peer reviewed studies. But I guess you will not do that. It doesn't agree with your ideas so it is automatically discounted. You don't want to understand something you don't agree with.

been there, done that.

Again, they're all suggestions that in the end, COULD HELP you better defend your own position... just trying to help out.

But be careful what you actually read.

Anyway... I don't agree that I have to go wash the dishes, but I understand that its part of the job as a husband. See?

Who is Mark Morano?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

He is the guy that put the articles together in one place. What, if he is opposed to the idea of man made global warming then anything he touches is automatically disqualified?

Guy gets paid to push a particular political position. And you don't find it suspect?

Nope. Why should you? He didn't write the papers only compiled them.

Its push vs. actual discovery... and the pne that undergoes the discovery process is labeled arrogant... wow...

:lol:

If your an example of our scientists then we are in real trouble. (if you really are a "scientist") How closed minded can you get?

PM me and I'll give you a tour of my lab next time you are in Chicago.

Don't worry, there won't be a quiz about what you learned afterwards.

I may not be a "scientist" but I am an avid reader with a strong interest in science. I have read and tried to understand the things I cite here. I would think that you wouldn't need me to spoon feed it to you, that you would out of curiosity follow the links and read the studies. But it seems you would rather attempt to look superior without doing the work. So OK, I will go through my bookmarks that I have been accumulating over the years and spoon feed you. Try to have an open mind.

Gary, I welcome the discussion. And I am seriously interested in your fascination with science. I also was a school teacher before moving on to lab science and loved interacting with skeptics and even the religious crowd... imagine that.

Like I said, PM me if you have time next time in Chicago for a quick lab tour or at the least a beer over the complexities of science talk.

If you go over the points you want to cover in long posts compiled by folks pushing particular agendas, make sure you can delineate your analysis so as to not get caught in the peer-review game. When an opinion forum becomes a fact-based discussion, one needs to show that one understands the evidence in order to fully appreciate the point one is trying to get across. You'd be surprised to see how one can think they're reading something and fnd out the "proof" can be suited to whomever is doing the compiling. Careful, VERY carfeul reading can attend to at least part of the comprehension factor.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This isn't a study but a news story that shows just how much resistance to other points of view when GW in concerned.

Yeah Really.

U.S. Official Edited Warming, Emission Link - Report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House official who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Skip to next paragraph Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal documents.

The White House denied that Cooney had watered down the impact of global warming.

``That's false,'' spokesman Scott McClellan said. ``The reports are based on the best scientific knowledge that we have at this time.''

The newspaper said it had obtained the documents from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal help to government whistle-blowers.

The group is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that coordinates government research and issued the documents that Cooney edited, the Times said.

The newspaper said Cooney made handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, removing or adjusting language on climate research.

White House officials told the newspaper the changes were part of a normal interagency review of all documents related to global environmental change.

``All comments are reviewed, and some are accepted and some are rejected,'' Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy told the newspaper.

In a memo sent last week to top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Piltz charged that ``politicization by the White House'' was undermining the credibility and integrity of the science program.

[HAL 9000 96]

And... science is not static... beware stockpiling old "evidence" from sources that can be revised within a couple of decades.

[HAL 9000 96]

This isn't a study but a news story that shows just how much resistance to other points of view when GW in concerned.

Yeah Really.

U.S. Official Edited Warming, Emission Link - Report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House official who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Skip to next paragraph Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal documents.

The White House denied that Cooney had watered down the impact of global warming.

``That's false,'' spokesman Scott McClellan said. ``The reports are based on the best scientific knowledge that we have at this time.''

The newspaper said it had obtained the documents from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal help to government whistle-blowers.

The group is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that coordinates government research and issued the documents that Cooney edited, the Times said.

The newspaper said Cooney made handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, removing or adjusting language on climate research.

White House officials told the newspaper the changes were part of a normal interagency review of all documents related to global environmental change.

``All comments are reviewed, and some are accepted and some are rejected,'' Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy told the newspaper.

In a memo sent last week to top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Piltz charged that ``politicization by the White House'' was undermining the credibility and integrity of the science program.

Wooops...

[GaryC 7]

This isn't a study but a news story that shows just how much resistance to other points of view when GW in concerned.

Yeah Really.

U.S. Official Edited Warming, Emission Link - Report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House official who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Skip to next paragraph Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal documents.

The White House denied that Cooney had watered down the impact of global warming.

``That's false,'' spokesman Scott McClellan said. ``The reports are based on the best scientific knowledge that we have at this time.''

The newspaper said it had obtained the documents from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal help to government whistle-blowers.

The group is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that coordinates government research and issued the documents that Cooney edited, the Times said.

The newspaper said Cooney made handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, removing or adjusting language on climate research.

White House officials told the newspaper the changes were part of a normal interagency review of all documents related to global environmental change.

``All comments are reviewed, and some are accepted and some are rejected,'' Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy told the newspaper.

In a memo sent last week to top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Piltz charged that ``politicization by the White House'' was undermining the credibility and integrity of the science program.

And this means what? Maybe it shows that the man made global warming issue is more political than scientific? Unless you think this proves that the pro man made global warming side has pure track record. Then I don't know what to tell you.

Edited January 28, 2008 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, I welcome the discussion. And I am seriously interested in your fascination with science. I also was a school teacher before moving on to lab science and loved interacting with skeptics and even the religious crowd... imagine that.

Like I said, PM me if you have time next time in Chicago for a quick lab tour or at the least a beer over the complexities of science talk.

If you go over the points you want to cover in long posts compiled by folks pushing particular agendas, make sure you can delineate your analysis so as to not get caught in the peer-review game. When an opinion forum becomes a fact-based discussion, one needs to show that one understands the evidence in order to fully appreciate the point one is trying to get across. You'd be surprised to see how one can think they're reading something and fnd out the "proof" can be suited to whomever is doing the compiling. Careful, VERY carfeul reading can attend to at least part of the comprehension factor.

That sounds like a gentelmanly offer.

Gary, you're obviously a thoughtful and good man. I admire your tenacity when it comes to taking a position but please consider what he's trying to tell you here. Be open to the idea that perhaps your limited understanding of science is preventing you from seeing this for what it really is. It would be awesome if you decided to go back to college and study climate science, but merely searching the internet for articles that imply a support for your position is really ludicrous and sad when you take to such extremes. Both maviwaro and novutol are both scientists and with both of them you unflinchingly challenged them on the science which is embarrassing to even watch.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Both maviwaro and novutol are both scientists and with both of them you unflinchingly challenged them on the science which is embarrassing to even watch.

[HAL 9000 96]

What I deeply admire in Gary is his persistence, right or wrong... I wish many people out there in the real world would apply themselves to get stuff done for the better of us all. Also I deeply respect the fondness with which he embodies the very principles that unifies us all on this online community... his love for his wife and son are readily visible and is something extremely positive.

Things like these climate discussions are always welcome. I truly believe that if one wants to argue with evidence that one should completely understand what one is arguing. Expert or no expert. Charles Doolittle Wolcott had no formal scientific training yet went on to lead the Smithsonian Institute a hundred years ago. Obviously the times and knowledge requirements have changed, as have the needs to have some kind of training to properly question, design, carry out, and interpret scientific precepts in a responsible and complete manner.