A statement from the American Geophysical Union

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

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.

[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.

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.

It shows that scientific research was altered and misrepresented by government officials with a clear link to "big oil". It certainly puts the other article about the guy's email into some sort of context now doesn't it?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gotta love all these backhanded compliments.

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

Gotta love all these backhanded compliments.

Who? What? Where?

[HAL 9000 96]

Gotta love all these backhanded compliments.

Hey c'mon I really mean it...

[GaryC 7]

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.

Ok, I will call a truce. I don't come by my opinion lightly. I have been following this thing since the consensus was we were heading to a new ice age back in the 70's. I may not be a scientist but I don't consider myself uneducated. I have 4 years of college and am a professional, just not in science. I saw the rush to blame man for the rise in temperatures by the scientists. But at the same time I remember seeing that the earths climate has changed drastically all by itself over and over in the last few billion years. I also remembered that the suns output changes over time. (not just the 7 and 11 year changes). I read the articles about how the evidence was mounting that it's our fault but they were not taking into account all the evidence. I saw the cherrypicking going on and became disillusioned at the whole thing. Because I was paying attention I sought out dissenting views and watched how they were repressed. I have to admit that for a long time all the evidence went against by belief. But since 2000 ever so slowly the evidence started pouring in that flew in the face of the consensus. The thing that really makes no sense to me is how, if the CO2 has been steadily rising since the beginning of the industrial age then how could we have a cool down in the 60's and 70's? It was so bad that everyone was calling for an ice age. Then in 1989 we had a really hot summer and this man made global warming started taking hold. It's true that temps have been rising but no one seems to care that the rise stopped in 2000. It's just ignored. Then while all this is going on I see things like the Kyoto treaty call for drastic reductions in OUR carbon output while countries like China and India don't have to. That smacks of a political run to me. Now the newest proposals call for the US to pay the undeveloped countries reparations because we were allowed to develop without restrictions and they can't. It's the politics of this whole thing that really gets me worked up. If this were only confined to the scientific world I would be content to let it play out as an observer. But this has stepped out of the scientific realm and gone to the political one. People like Al Gore get Nobel awards for doing nothing but paying someone to make a movie out of a power point presentation. And all the while that hypocrite jets all over the world and has a house that uses more energy than 5 normal houses.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

for those who believe global warming is an issue and carbon dioxide is assisting in this, please......

do your part and stop breathing.

[HAL 9000 96]

No truce necessary, Gary. There is no need to let arguments flaw themselves with fightin' stances.

I see a little bit more about the evolution your though trains have taken over the past years. And I think I am starting to understand where you as an individual are coming from.

First things first: we should not treat climate change as a singular event that draws its variables independently. You yourself identify how climate has been a dynamic and natural process depending on the planet's geology and biology. Furthermore, you show understanding in accepting well-known evidence that change is dependent on the variables that have been presently studied such as greenhouse gas composition, solar radiation, etc.

What you need to follow up on is the actual and factual combinations that are not necessarily inclusive of the phenomena that yields radically differing opinions and of course by consequence, polarized viewpoints heralded usually by those most likely to gain/lose by the outcomes, either perceived or observed. This includes economical ramnifications.

Granted, Kyoto is not perfect. Nor does it have to be the FINAL agreement. One in order to achieve change sometimes has to move in steps over time. What one needs to consider with respect to countries like the US in being held at higher accountabilities stems from the partial responsibility we have as a developed entity in attaining our overconsumer status while promoting the predation of resources from those that do not have the means to maintain them at home in a prosperous manner. Once those countries do attain a means of overconsuming as we do, then it becoms a no-holds barred fight with present scenarios clearly available. What is the solution? Blocking the sun with one hand is not an answer nor is it polarizing the current climate even more so as to prevent any real solutions. By polarizing against people like Gore one tends to polarize oneself in the crowd that favors global warming by default.

And, one mans fault is not another's excuse to avoid improving our surroundings. That is called personal responsibility.

[HAL 9000 96]

So why worry to opine or is it just a matter of making the ever-predictable snide comment-of-the-night Charles?

[mendeleev 68]

Let me try to explain so even you can understand. You keep touting the peer review process as the way scientists get their ideas validated. Well guess who does the peer review? The same scientists that have the aforementioned mind set! Anyone that comes along with an opposing view gets shot down. Take your reaction to my point of view. Your hostile and degrading of my opinion. You think you have all the answers. Your arrogance and self importance will not allow any other ideas. So as far as your concerned your opinions are useless.

Gary,

I suspect you, unlike some of us, have never been on the receiving or delivering end of scientific peer review.

My experience is that it is not the genteel, conformance-enhancing activity you imagine it to be. If I'm incorrect on this, and you do have first-hand experience with how the peer-review process works, it might be interesting to hear about. But if, as I suspect, I'm correct, and you don't know what you are actually talking but only imagine it -- perhaps you might confine yourself to what you know about.

I remember the debate about whether or not to require cars and trucks to have catalytic converters. There was all sorts of disinformation bated about -- about how the auto industry would immediately collaspe, how they would be phenomenally expensive, how the science suggesting they be used was junk science -- and some of what you write reminds me of that.

Now, exhaust from a modern car is close to 1000 times cleaner than in the 60s. Driving one of those cars can actually clean the air in a polluted city! The devices are expensive, and industry managed to adapt. More cars were sold globally last year than any previous year. The industry didn't collaspe.

I suspect that adaptions to global warming will be similar. Right now, oil prices are extremely high and the world is dependent on stability of a rather unstable portion of the world. Global warming will probably drive creation of renewable energy industries that, on balance, will probably help US industry and the US economy. More energy will be created locally (in the USA) and we'll export fewer dollars to petrostates. The improvement in energy security may not be a bad thing.

The scientific literature is really quite self-correcting. In the 80s and 90s, there was quite lively debate in the archival (i.e., peer-reviewed) literature as people sought all sorts of mechanisms to invalidate emerging, upsetting (in a number of ways) theories of global warming. Those mechanisms -- some of which you continue to tout although I don't see reference to scientific literature to support them -- turned up lacking. The current consensus emerged. American atmospheric scientists, especially those working in the federal government, are to be commended for helping forge that consensus -- especially given hostility from their own government and funding agencies throughout all that time. The easy way out for them would have been to abandon the field and find others that our government liked more.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

So why worry to opine or is it just a matter of making the ever-predictable snide comment-of-the-night Charles?

yes