Why are we concealing data about Global warming

[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]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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/s...toryId=4694413

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Sto...3979695&page=1

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...mental_Quality

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A9659C8B63

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. 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, not the 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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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/c...n-exposed.html