Why are we concealing data about Global warming

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Platapus

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/....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;
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;

[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_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.

[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]

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