Why are we concealing data about Global warming

[Platapus]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/cheney.climate.ap/index.html

Cheney wanted testimony cut, ex-EPA official says
Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed for major deletions in congressional testimony on the public health consequences of climate change, fearing the presentation by a leading health official might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, a former EPA official maintains.

I hold both sides equally guilty in this.

The debate on the many related issues about Global Warming need to continue. There is dissent and I don't think all the information has been reviewed and examined. The issues (multiple) are too complex for a one sentence answer.

We simply can't appropriately address this problem if

1. The "pro" Global Warming people are selective about what data and which models are being used

2. The "con" Global Warming people are selective about what data and which models are being used

We need to explore ALL hypothesis, identify ALL applicable data, evaluate ALL the models for accuracy, review ALL the different analyses on this topic, analyze all the analytical methodologies used, academically review ALL reports independently so we can find out:

What are the hypotheses?
What are the possible states of each hypothesis?
What are the probable states of each hypothesis?
What indicators support which hypothesis?
What indicators refute which hypothesis?
What are our options?
What are our reasonable options?
What are the means of implementing these options?

So the various governments can make a logical, complete, and accurate assessment and decision.

Let's do this and do it completely and do it logically.

[Skybird]

We do not need all that for another couple of years and decades, Platapus. We have already done that ad nauseum. Nor do we need more years and decades wasted with even more discussions and unsubstantial declaration of intentions and hopes and wishes.

We need to start action adapting to what is already taking place right here and right now, in our world, during our lifetime. It is no longer the future. The future we talked about ten years ago.

So we need to start doing action NOW.

the sad thing is , what needs to be doen for the most will not be done. And the little that gets being done, is too little, and comes too late.

That threatens a lot of short-termed interests who live by the condition quo not being changed. that is your answer to the question of why data about global warming is getting concealed.

There is a very strong correlation between speeding up of warming by a factor of 1000 or faster, and the emergence of man'S activities on this planet. But that is not important. Global warming is taking place, with or without that correlation. And no matter the idiotic threads denying it by repeating the same nonsens "arguments" denying it time and again in total ignorration of that their content has been countered and demystified SINCE YEARS. for example the paradox effect of one half of the antarctic winning in ice thickness - while hiding that the other half is loosing ice, and that it all is an evidence of global warming affecting the antarctic by a mechanism of warming-evaporation-condensating. Or the idiotic biomass- hypothesis that claims that CO2 production actually fosters a green planet, and claiming that by not going beyond the immidiate short-term time-scale. It has been falsified time and again, and has been posted time and again as well. the explanations have been made public, they are reasonable, they are valid, and have been predicted years in advance. There is nothing mysterious, and nothing dogmatic, and nothing conspiratorial about them. and still the same crap gets claimed time and again, as if the counter-arguments never has been given.

It'S all about making the louder noise.

Why wasting even more time with doing all this AGAIN? When it has not convinced the ignorrant the past ten times - why assuming you could do it when doing it one more time? The debate is more about an almost religious dogma than about the obvious, or scientific facts. It is about a decision not to believe in what one knows. You cant argue with people who believe. they will always counter any opposing argument by saying "I believe different". belief is more important to them than facts.

I stopped wasting my time with sceptics, who aren't sceptic at all, because a sceptic nevertheless argues by reason and knows his stuff instead of endlessly repeating the same biased propaganda. Much of what I read in this forum in the past is no scepticism, but pure ignorrance and stupid propaganda. In the end these people will have to deal with the changes that have begun to make themselves beeing felt like everybody elsehas to. and wether they become loud or not, or are truly sceptic or just ignorrant or not, does not play any role. It does not matter.

It's already happening. See it, or not. Adapt, or not. Be able to handle it, or not. Survive, or not. It doesn't matter - for things are happening nevertheless, and they refuse to take your opinion about them into account.

so please, not another round of what we already have had in abundance - forum-wise, as well as on the political stage.

and the moderator will be thankful to have one potential hotspot less needing to keep a close eye on. ;) even more so since we have been there several times before.

[UnderseaLcpl]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/cheney.climate.ap/index.html

Cheney wanted testimony cut, ex-EPA official says
Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed for major deletions in congressional testimony on the public health consequences of climate change, fearing the presentation by a leading health official might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, a former EPA official maintains.

I hold both sides equally guilty in this.

The debate on the many related issues about Global Warming need to continue. There is dissent and I don't think all the information has been reviewed and examined. The issues (multiple) are too complex for a one sentence answer.

We simply can't appropriately address this problem if

1. The "pro" Global Warming people are selective about what data and which models are being used

2. The "con" Global Warming people are selective about what data and which models are being used

We need to explore ALL hypothesis, identify ALL applicable data, evaluate ALL the models for accuracy, review ALL the different analyses on this topic, analyze all the analytical methodologies used, academically review ALL reports independently so we can find out:

a)What are the hypotheses?
b)What are the possible states of each hypothesis?
c)What are the probable states of each hypothesis?
d)What indicators support which hypothesis?
e)What indicators refute which hypothesis?
f)What are our options?
g)What are our reasonable options?
h)What are the means of implementing these options?

So the various governments can make a logical, complete, and accurate assessment and decision.

Let's do this and do it completely and do it logically.

A brief summation of my opinions on this issue; (subtopic alphebetization added to your quote for clarity)

a) Global warming is caused by man vs. global warming is natural vs. There is no global warming does not exsist.

b) Too many to enumerate. It ranges from "catastrophe imminent" to "are you kidding me?"

c) 1) Global temperatures show a variable, but steady increase since mankind has industrialized.
2) 1 is true but this is part of a pattern that has been around much longer than mankind.
3) This whole thing is bunk

d) 1) see c1
2) see c1
3) see Oxford English Dictionary entry for "oblivious"

e) 1) Climatological history of the Earth
2) "Common sense" and disregard for climatological precedents
3) Doing research

f) 1) Driving hybrid cars and reducing pollution. Calling Captain Planet. Reducing Carbon footprint. Destroying economies or changing them so radically as to destroy them for a significant period.
2) Trust in science and adaptability
3) Let our kids worry about it. Or grandchildren. Or whatever.

g) 1) Supposedly if we all drive hybrids and look for "alternative" energy sources and become hippies and all look out for the planet this will go away. Frankly I have never seen a viable solution.
2) see f2
3) see f3

h) 1) Oppressive worldwide government
2) Market adaptability and individual freedom
3) Stop thinking about it

I'll admit that my views are biased in favor of the view global warming is a natural function, as is cooling and whatever else. I have yet to see a reasonable argument that stands in the face of accumulated data from core samples and the like.
That being said, I intended to post a link to a youtube video of a John Stossel piece that makes a good counterpoint to the "universally accepted" view that global warming is because of us. Sadly my internets is acting up and I will have to double-post or edit. Thanks for undestanding.

edit---here's the link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNIgzZm66bE
2nd edit-- I had to include this as biased as it is against the "green" faction in this debate. Kennedy makes a terrible attempt at defending this position; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXRB4U3vW0

[Monica Lewinsky]

"Why are we concealing data about Global warming?"

Maybe because Al Gore spends $2,000 PER MONTH on his home mansion just for his electric bill and gets a Nobel prize for concealing the truth on green house gases and also owns and operates 7 SUV's for his immediate family of which not ONE vehicle gets over 15 mpg and tells YOU ... that YOU need to save the planet?

Yea ... that might be a problem.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

He is just a two faced, useless, left over, no one wants you, Clinton jerk Head warming your planet.

Start at the top and work down to solve the problem.

[Frame57]

If you want areal education on the matter try Michael Savages website. There is Global warming, but it has very little to do with mankind or farting cows etc... How would Alfonse Gorelioni explain the natural Ice ages and warming periods. Perhaps he would blame the Cavemen. Yes! The discovery of fire is what started the whole thing.:nope:

[Stealth Hunter]

The fact is, the planet is warming. That's very true. It's done this before, but it's doing it again, only more quickly than in previous cases. What's also clear and true is that the pollution cars emit doesn't help with the situation either; it makes it worse. CFC emissions are also damaging to the ozone, contributing to the situation.

What's also clear and true is that the planet goes through natural cycles of these things. Why? I really don't know. It just does. Whatever the reason, the one thing we can be sure of is that man is partially to blame as is the environment. People outright denying its existence entirely, though, really don't know what they're talking about. It exists, but it's not totally man's fault and it's not totally the environment's fault. It's both.

[Schroeder]

But if it is a fact that mankind has nothing to do with it, why does the Bush administration conceal/manipulate data? They always said that mankind isn't responsible for this, so if they conceal/change data then this data must have shown the opposite.
And if it really does, then concealing or even faking it would mean to send mankind to hell just for making a few more bucks with oil.

I always wondered why the "anti global warming" guys have to rely on shady characters and mafia methods so often if the entire case is so perfectly clear as they always claim.:hmm:


Don't get me wrong, I don't know whether global warming is caused by us or not.
But if I can choose to belief from scientists who are focusing on the theme or scientists/politicians/lobbyists who have either different sectors of research than climate models or are involved in the oil/automobile/coal industry, bribing scientists to get the results they want, concealing data they don't like, then I would choose the climate experts.
The other guys are just too mafia-like to have any credibility. If a case is clear, I don't need to conceal/fake data. I don't need to bribe scientists to make them not mentioning the word “global warming” in there reports, I don't need to rely on nutrition researchers for making statements against global warming.
This all makes it pretty much impossible to belief these guys.

[August]

But if it is a fact that mankind has nothing to do with it, why does the Bush administration conceal/manipulate data?

We have one single person, a 31 year old lifelong Democrat, making these claims in an election year. Why do you immediately take it as gospel?

[Tchocky]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4694413

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3979695&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Public_sector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Environmental_Quality

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E7D91431F93BA3575BC0A9659C8B 63

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653

[August]

Tchocky those links are all about the same thing:

The report is the result of a 16-month investigation by the committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Republicans on the committee quickly dismissed the report as a "political attack" and issued their own findings that question the Democrats' conclusions and investigative methods. The White House called the allegations untrue.
So you have Democrats saying bad things about Republicans during an election year. Go figure...

[Tchocky]

So you have Democrats saying bad things about Republicans during an election year. Go figure... Well, 2007 ain't an election year. You may be thinking of 2006 or 2008.

That a Democrat is responsible for the report does not invalidate its findings, and does not make it dismissable as political spin. It doesn't change that the Bush administration filled the CEQ with oilmen. Look at the link above, check out Philip Cooney (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). Check out Jeffrey Salmon, former head of an oil-industry think tank devoted to spreading BS on climate change. That's the George C Marshall institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute), not the American Petroleum Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Petroleum_Institute), where Cooney worked before the CEQ. Salmon is now the Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy. Oh, and he was Cheney's speechwriter for a while.
These are the people who are tasked with environmental advice to the President.
Go figure And so we have Bush rejecting Kyoto on the basis of advice from the oil industry.

The company was also successful in pushing the Bush administration to renege on previous U.S. commitments to the Kyoto Protocol.
To some observers, the House investigation, which drew on 27,000 documents gathered from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the US Department of Commerce, is notable as the most comprehensive assessment so far of alleged manipulation of climate science by this White House. It includes previously unknown elements – such as a 2003 incident in which it says top presidential environment adviser James Connaughton personally helped edit the Environmental Protection Agency's draft legal opinion that denied the agency had authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.

[August]

And so we have Bush rejecting Kyoto on the basis of advice from the oil industry.

No Bush rejected Kyoto because it was a bad idea for our country.

[Tchocky]

The company was also successful in pushing the Bush administration to renege on previous U.S. commitments to the Kyoto Protocol. In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, “POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.”

from http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed.html

[August]

You probably will have problems with the source but I think it amplifies the truth of the matter quite well. Note the article date:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1229.cfm

Now imagine another buck a gallon on top of where it is at the moment...

[Tchocky]

Well, Heritage aren't going to be interested in any sort of taxation/limits on public spending or consumption. The only thing worse than the government taxing you is the UN taxing you.

The idea that action against climate change should not be taken, as it will cost money, is a terminally stupid position to take. The Stern Review concluded that 1% of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to 20% of global GDP.

Also, their characterisation of climate change is ridiculous. They quote guys like the Global Climate Coalition (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#Funding), and have chapters like "There is no evidence that the potential negative effects of global warming outweigh its benefits."

Another point is that the catastrophic effects of Kyoto predicted for the US have not been observed in other countries. Several studies fall on wither side of the cost/benefit line, financially. Most scientific studies agree that it is at best a minor step.

[SUBMAN1]

Come on! The data is such that man made global warming doesn't exist! How many times do we have to go over this? There is no 'selective' data. What Cheney is probably asking for is the cover up of the inaccurate short term data! We are below the 3000 year average at this point! We are not speeding up and making GW go 1000 times faster. We have no measurable effect! The Earth is going to do what the Earth is going to do. You cannot stop it.

Why not talk about something real for once like getting rid of pollution! Now there is a real goal! CO2 is not pollution. How about eliminating Arsenic from your tailpipe for example? These are real goals! I don't want to breath pollution either! CO2 however is a waste of time and simply a control for people in power.

-S