Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The Union of Concerned Scientists contended in a report that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

F. Sherwood Rowland, a Nobel prize winner for his studies of ozone in the atmosphere, was particularly critical of the administration's approach to climate change.

He said the consensus of scientific opinion about global warming is being ignored and that government reports have been censored to remove views not in tune with Bush's politics.

Among the examples cited in the union's report:
-- a 2003 report that the administration sought changes in an Environmental Protection Agency climate study, including deletion of a 1,000-year temperature record and removal of reference to a study that attributed some of global warming to human activity.

->This story has been widely reported in the press today.

First, the consensus among scientists is that global warming is not occurring, and that man isn't causing it, even if it does exist. The definition of consensus is "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". Absolutely no evidence of a consensus in this belief, but there is evidence of a consensus among scientists that global warming is not occurring, and that man does not have an effect on it. So how is the Bush administration ignoring this fact? The fact is, the consensus among scientists is that they don't believe in global warming, and the Bush administration is not ignoring them!

Second, why would anyone who is credible, even want to quote a 1,000 year record of temps. to prove man is causing global warming, when man hasn't even been industrialized for the first 90-95% of that period of time? The first 90-95% of this period is relevant, how? Including that study, or criticizing its elimination, shows this man is not credible, and that this story is pure political rhetoric.

Here's a news flash! Why wouldn't the Bush administration want this nonsense removed from the record? Why don't these scientists quote NASA, who were the first ones to bring up the subject of global warming, and have since recanted, and now say that with better, more accurate temp. measurements there is proof that there has been cooling for the last 20 years? And that their earlier computer models were flawed? Or that the UN's computer models are flawed? Or that satellite, weather balloon data, and ground temp. data all confirm this 20 year cooling? Or that it was the Clinton administration, that was tied into Enron, that first signed onto(Kyoto) the global warming theory because Enron could make billions by selling natural gas after coal plants were forced to close? Or that Clinton "declared" global warming as fact, shortly after this, and no longer a theory? Or that it was the Bush administration that wouldn't go along with Enron's profiteering plans?

Rodney

I am 47 years old now. When I was a boy we had A PERMANENT LAYER of snow in our region beginning from mid November until mid March. And it had been huge amounts of snow that came down.
And it was cold. So cold that the Diesel froze even without antifreeze in it.

Meanwhile our winter is almost a cold spring. Snow for several days now and again which thaws within a few days.

Don't tell me we have no global warming. I don't know if it is caused by man or by other effects.

But to say there is no global warming is like claiming the earth is a disc.
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

Don't get mad at me! Get mad at NASA if you don't like their conclusions/data. Don't shoot the messenger!

I tend to believe them, over many others, as they have changed their position on global warming. They seem to be more concerned with the actual data, than trying to prove their point or get rich off it.

All this global warming garbage got stated when a single NASA scientist testified to congress many years ago. It was later discovered that there were errors in a computer model and those errors were corrected. After the computer program corrections, NASA changed their position on global warming. This is how the UN also came to the conclusion that there is global warming. If you look into it, you will find they continually change their projections on global warming, and this is done whenever they change their computer model!

On top of that, satellite data shows the earth has been cooling for about the last 20 years! Not heating at all, but actually cooling!

It has been learned that the old data, that was collected by land based temp. stations, was flawed. It wasn't flawed because the temps. measured were wrong, it was flawed because the temps. didn't accurately reflect world temps! It is believed that because we are talking about a long period of time (100 years or more), buildings/roads/concrete/etc. have been built up near these stations and the heat content they store up has influenced the temp. readings. Have you ever been in a city in a mountainous area and noticed that the temps within that city are much warmer in the evening than in the surrounding countryside? This explains why the majority of what was believed to be global warming, occurred primarily at night and in winter! Summer temps. remain almost unchanged. And remember, this is all from using the land based temp. stations that are now known to be flawed!

Some pro-global warming activists tried to discredit the satellite data, but the satellite data was shown to be correct by both weather balloons, and by confirming their readings with the ground based temp. measurements.

science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm

In the midst of all this, Enron figured out they could make billions by "endorsing" global warming and causing the closing of coal burning plants. Enron controls natural gas, and they could then "price gouge" and replace the coal industry. Enron was also tied into the Clinton administration who actively promoted the idea of global warming and Clinton signed the Kyoto contract. All the while, Gore did the same, and so did environmental groups that could profit by suing "evil" corporations.

Don't believe it? Take a look at this graph

Note, the large gain in 1982 was due to a volcanic eruption from El Chichon and in 1991 from Mt. Pinatubo! Without them it would be pretty much all be down since 1982! Doesn't look like global warming to me!

I can give you URL's to the stories about the Clinton Administration being tied to Enron also.

You simply can't take temperature measurements in one particular place and say there is global warming or cooling. Remember, we are talking about a degree or two change in 100 years! Do you really think you could personally even come close to noticing this change, maybe .3 degrees in your life, by the snow on the ground? Absolute nonsense. You perception of this snow has either changed from when you were younger, or there is a factual local change that can't be related to an average global change.

Rondey