Global Warming Open Debate Thread

MonsterMark said:
Last I checked this was the political forum on an automotive website. I did a search of the site and there seems to be discussions about absolutely nothing, and in addition to naked girls, there seems to be talk about cars. Eh, no one forces anybody to lurk here. Nobody forces anybody to post here. Nobody needs to come here if they don't want to. Ego or no ego, some of us get our kicks yacking about this stuff. Doesn't make it right or wrong. Simply just another outlet on the site for members to enjoy. But like I said, nobody is forced to come here so if it doesn't suit your fancy...

Now why did you go and do that! I even said I agreed with Fossten a difficult thing to do! There should have been a celebration! This thread could actually work on uniting 2 sides with respect, other than the disrespectful division that stands. Something our political geniuses in Washington can't seem to do.
 
You're welcome. Do you actually believe that you are almost always right?
 
Let me get this straight. You're trying to start an argument with ME about something BRYAN said? Go back and re-read this thread. I haven't even commented on your silly premise.

What's your problem? Why do you and Rich have to make this Global Warming thread about me? Is it because you have nothing solid to contribute toward the topic?

Seems like despite your private overtures of peace to me in PMs, you are still outwardly a hater.
 
Just asked a simple question. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
 
barry2952 said:
Just asked a simple question. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

No, you asked a silly, baiting, irrelevant question.

Can we get back to topic now?
 
Ex-EPA Chiefs Blame Bush in Global Warming

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, January 19, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/01/18/national/w144850S66.DTL
(01-19) 16:20 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The U.S. is failing to take the lead in confronting global warming, a "dishonest" and "self-destructive" approach that only worsens the problem, say former federal environmental chiefs.

"We need leadership, and I don't think we're getting it," Russell Train said Wednesday at an Environmental Protection Agency symposium commemorating the agency's 35th anniversary.

Added Bill Ruckelshaus: "I don't think there's a commitment in this administration."

They were among six former EPA heads — five Republicans and one Democrat — who accused the Bush administrations of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.

Train said slowing the growth of "greenhouse" gases isn't enough.

"To sit back and just push it away and say we'll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive" said Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Ruckelshaus was the first EPA chief.

All of the former administrators and the current one, Stephen Johnson, raised their hands when the event moderator asked whether they believe global warming is a real problem and again when he asked if humans bear significant blame.

Johnson said the Bush administration has spent $20 billion on research and technology to combat climate change after President Bush rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide. That's the chief gas blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

Bush has kept the United States out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, saying the pact would harm the U.S. economy. Many of the accord's terms were negotiated by the Clinton administration but it was never ratified by the Senate.

"I know from the president on down, he is committed," Johnson said. "And certainly his charge to me was, and certainly our team has heard it: 'I want you to accelerate the pace of environmental protection. I want you to maintain our economic competitiveness.' And I think that's really what it's all about."

But Lee Thomas, Ruckelshaus' successor in the Reagan administration, said "if the United States doesn't deal with those kinds of issues in a leadership role, they're not going to get dealt with. So I'm very concerned about this country and this agency."

Bill Reilly, the EPA administrator under the first President Bush, said, "The time will come when we will address seriously the problem of climate change, and this is the agency that's best equipped to anticipate it."

Christie Whitman, the first of three EPA administrators in the current Bush administration, said people obviously are having "an enormous impact" on the earth's warming.

"You'd need to be in a hole somewhere to think that the amount of change that we have imposed on land, and the way we've handled deforestation, farming practices, development, and what we're putting into the air, isn't exacerbating what is probably a natural trend," she said. "But this is worse, and it's getting worse."

Carol Browner, who was President Clinton's EPA administrator, said the White House and the Congress should push legislation to establish a carbon trading program based on a 1990 pollution trading program that helped reduce acid rain.

"If we wait for every single scientist who has a thought on the issue of climate change to agree, we will never do anything," she said.

Three former administrators did not attend Wednesday's ceremony: Mike Leavitt, the current health and human services secretary; Doug Costle, who was in the Carter administration; and Anne Burford, a Reagan appointee who died last year.
 
Your article is untimely, Phil, considering that global warming is now being questioned by prominent scientists as being incorrect.

Nobody cares what former EPA wackos think. Kyoto is a scam and everybody knows it except you fiberals.

Good thing for us we have a Prez that shows leadership in not kowtowing to the Europeans' fearmongering.
 
I might concede your point that global warming may not be all man's fault but how do you explain 56° in Michigan on January 19th? Global warming is real no matter where you might like to shift the reasons.
 
Global Warming is not all Man's fault. Pollution and the quality of our environment is man’s fault. EPA – Bush look at the environmental quality of Texas.

What I still see is funny is that if group or anyone finds fault in Bush, it’s wrong and they are Wacko. Only Pro-Bu$hit ideology is correct. Well the only thing it is right. Right winged that is.
 
barry2952 said:
I might concede your point that global warming may not be all man's fault but how do you explain 56° in Michigan on January 19th? Global warming is real no matter where you might like to shift the reasons.

Your question is rhetorical. I don't dispute global warming, only that we are causing it or that we could stop it.

However -

There is evidence that we are on the verge of a global cooling period.

Either way, Phil's article is pure bunk and irrelevant to the arguments of this thread.
 
fossten said:
Your article is untimely, Phil, considering that global warming is now being questioned by prominent scientists as being incorrect.

The majority of the scientists I've seen questioning the validity of global warming work for foundations funded by the Oil, Coal and Automotive industries, think that might have something to do with their positions?

fossten said:
Nobody cares what former EPA wackos think. Kyoto is a scam and everybody knows it except you fiberals.
These were all respected members of the community, now EPA wackos because they disagree with Shrub?

fossten said:
Good thing for us we have a Prez that shows leadership in not kowtowing to the Europeans' fearmongering.
Shrub and cronies have altered scientific reports to cast doubt on the validity of the findings of the reports concerning global warming. Keep your head buried in the sand, your kids will pay the price!!
 
97silverlsc said:
The majority of the scientists I've seen questioning the validity of global warming work for foundations funded by the Oil, Coal and Automotive industries, think that might have something to do with their positions?


These were all respected members of the community, now EPA wackos because they disagree with Shrub?


Shrub and cronies have altered scientific reports to cast doubt on the validity of the findings of the reports concerning global warming. Keep your head buried in the sand, your kids will pay the price!!

Once again, Phil, you pose EMPTY assertions backed up by NO FACTUAL evidence whatsoever.

You own the empty, kool-aid rhetoric, but you are *owned* by the truth.
 
barry2952 said:
I might concede your point that global warming may not be all man's fault but how do you explain 56° in Michigan on January 19th? Global warming is real no matter where you might like to shift the reasons.
better check the farmers almanac, there have been lots of warm winters on record. didn't we just have one of the coldest winters on record a few years ago?
 
Have you seen the pictures of the polar ice caps and glaciers? I'm not just talking about mild winters.
 
Scientists question trees' role in global warming

Under the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the forest is a saint, as trees suck in carbon dioxide (CO2) as part of the natural process of respiration.

By such thinking, if Kyoto signatories plant lots of forests, they create wonderful sponges that absorb the dangerous climate-altering gas.

But what if trees, in addition to taking in CO2, also emit a greenhouse gas of their own?

That scenario is sketched in a new study by European scientists, which if confirmed, would be one of the biggest upheavals in climate science for years.

It would also inflict a serious blow to Kyoto, one of whose key pillars is the faith in "sinks", as forests are called in the treaty's jargon.

Until now, the mainstream belief is that atmospheric methane chiefly comes from bugs: from bacteria working in wet, oxygen-less conditions, such as swamps and rice paddies.

But in a study published in the journal Nature, a team led by Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute in Germany has found living plants, dried leaves and grass emit methane in the presence of air.

Nor is this gas just a piffling amount.

The researchers roughly estimate the world's living vegetation emits between 62 and 236 million tonnes of methane per year, and plant litter adds one to seven million tonnes.

This would be equivalent to between 10 and 30 per cent of all annual global emissions of methane.
Experiments

The evidence comes from a series of carefully controlled experiments in the lab and in the field, in which gas chromatography and sensors to monitor carbon-13 isotopes detected and measured methane flows from the vegetation.

The ambient atmosphere was first stripped of background methane before being pumped into enclosed tanks surrounding the plants and leaves in order to get a better chance of spotting the vegetal gas emissions.

Levels of methane were "very temperature sensitive," with concentrations approximately doubling with every 10 degrees Celsius rise in temperature in a range between 30 degrees and 70 degrees, a phenomenon that suggests that breakdown by enzymes is not the cause.

In a review of the study, New Zealand atmospheric scientist David Lowe said the findings were a surprise but in fact could explain a nagging puzzle.

Between 1990 and 2000, satellite monitors had detected a slowing of methane flows to the atmosphere by around 20 million tonnes a year.

The cause for this may have been the dramatic rate of deforestation during the same period, Dr Lowe suggested.

From 1990-2000, more than 12 per cent of the world's tropical forests were hacked down.

Added to this is the anecdotal data from satellite sensors, which have occasionally spotted inexplicably large plumes of methane over old tropical forests, he said.

[snip]
 
JC1994 said:
better check the farmers almanac, there have been lots of warm winters on record. didn't we just have one of the coldest winters on record a few years ago?


And while it was 56 in Michigan, it was 35 below zero in Moscow and people were freezing to death in the streets.
 
fossten said:
Once again, Phil, you pose EMPTY assertions backed up by NO FACTUAL evidence whatsoever.

Did you have to have the doorways enlarged in your house? Cause you certainly are full of yourself, your head is extremely large, too bad it's empty.

Here is a link to Henry Waxmans site with articles concerning the politicization of science, how Shrub has altered reports, etc.
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/investigations.asp?Issue=Politics+and+Science
Before you pooh-pooh because it's Waxmans site why don't you read some of the posted articles. There is plenty of info on other sites that back this up. It's a been a RW tactic dating back to the beginning of the EPA, just that Shrubby has taken it to new highs.

More info here:http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/
 
fossten said:
Scientists question trees' role in global warming

Under the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the forest is a saint, as trees suck in carbon dioxide (CO2) as part of the natural process of respiration.

By such thinking, if Kyoto signatories plant lots of forests, they create wonderful sponges that absorb the dangerous climate-altering gas.

But what if trees, in addition to taking in CO2, also emit a greenhouse gas of their own?

That scenario is sketched in a new study by European scientists, which if confirmed, would be one of the biggest upheavals in climate science for years.

It would also inflict a serious blow to Kyoto, one of whose key pillars is the faith in "sinks", as forests are called in the treaty's jargon.

Until now, the mainstream belief is that atmospheric methane chiefly comes from bugs: from bacteria working in wet, oxygen-less conditions, such as swamps and rice paddies.

But in a study published in the journal Nature, a team led by Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute in Germany has found living plants, dried leaves and grass emit methane in the presence of air.

Nor is this gas just a piffling amount.

The researchers roughly estimate the world's living vegetation emits between 62 and 236 million tonnes of methane per year, and plant litter adds one to seven million tonnes.

This would be equivalent to between 10 and 30 per cent of all annual global emissions of methane.
Experiments

The evidence comes from a series of carefully controlled experiments in the lab and in the field, in which gas chromatography and sensors to monitor carbon-13 isotopes detected and measured methane flows from the vegetation.

The ambient atmosphere was first stripped of background methane before being pumped into enclosed tanks surrounding the plants and leaves in order to get a better chance of spotting the vegetal gas emissions.

Levels of methane were "very temperature sensitive," with concentrations approximately doubling with every 10 degrees Celsius rise in temperature in a range between 30 degrees and 70 degrees, a phenomenon that suggests that breakdown by enzymes is not the cause.

In a review of the study, New Zealand atmospheric scientist David Lowe said the findings were a surprise but in fact could explain a nagging puzzle.

Between 1990 and 2000, satellite monitors had detected a slowing of methane flows to the atmosphere by around 20 million tonnes a year.

The cause for this may have been the dramatic rate of deforestation during the same period, Dr Lowe suggested.

From 1990-2000, more than 12 per cent of the world's tropical forests were hacked down.

Added to this is the anecdotal data from satellite sensors, which have occasionally spotted inexplicably large plumes of methane over old tropical forests, he said.

[snip]
What is the source of this article? you used to bitch at me that I didn't post a link to the original, I now do so, why don't you?
 
The world is just too greedy to stop poluting. Break out the sunscreen and crank up the A/C, it's gonna be a long nother 60 years for me.
 
fossten said:
Once again, Phil, you pose EMPTY assertions backed up by NO FACTUAL evidence whatsoever.

Here's another article "alledging" Shrub administration interference.

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/s...&en=0a858f5230677507&ei=5094&partner=homepage
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: January 29, 2006

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," he said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

Mr. Acosta said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, is a leading authority on the earth's climate system. He directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute on Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.

In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.

He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled, and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives affecting his statements had come through informal telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet." The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal." Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, in NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so.

Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.

Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"


Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred.

"He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public, and this kind of attempted muzzling of the science community is really rather dangerous. If we just accept it, then we're contributing to the problem."

Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled.

In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views.

"He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been."

The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.

Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing.

One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems.

In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identifies the views as his own.

"One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing," he wrote.

Many people who work with Dr. Hansen said that politics was not a factor in his dispute with the Bush administration.

"The thing that has always struck me about him is I don't think he's political at all," said Mark R. Hess, director of public affairs for the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., a position that also covers the Goddard Institute in New York.

"He really is not about concerning himself with whose administration is in charge, whether it's Republicans, Democrats or whatever," Mr. Hess said. "He's a pretty down-the-road conservative independent-minded person.

"What he cares deeply about is being a scientist, his research, and I think he feels a true obligation to be able to talk about that in whatever fora are offered to him."
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top