Interesting Commentary on Global Warming

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Ninong
Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies testified before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee today. He stood by his view that the Bush Administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

Dr. Hansen took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer (a political appointee) listen in on his interviews with reporters and with the administration's refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

"This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

"When I testify to you as a government scientist," he said, "why does my testimony have to be reviewed, edited and changed by a bureaucrat in the White House?" Sitting beside him was one of the bureaucrats Hansen was talking about: Philip Cooney, chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2005.

Cooney, an official of the American Petroleum Institute before going to the White House, acknowledged having reviewed some of Hansen's testimony as part of a long-standing practice designed to result in consistency.

Full L.A. Times article here.

I remember this, thanks for posting it. This is an excellent article showing how far some people will go to hide an issue that is supposedly "fake".

[yrema]

tagging along

[Cronus]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
I urge all of you to read about sulfur dioxide trading and see how well that worked, then tell me why there is so much opposition to doing the same thing for CO2. You can make fun of Gore all you want for his carbon trading, but it's a great system if only there was a little more support for it.

Carbon trading seems to be more about economics and making vast amounts of money than saving the planet...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...3/b4027057.htm

http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/02/emission_tradin.html

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carniv...es_inconv.html

Once you've had a sift through that then you can tell me if you still think it's a great system in it's present format.
Gore would be considered a conman in any other walk of life but because he parades himself as a climate warrior he's held up on a pedestal of greatness.

[Rossini]

[i


And this is where your argument loses ALL credibility.
Please don't feel like I am picking on you, but again this is a very common problem for affluent people. This feeling is why we give change to the "homeless" or go to the dog pound to get a mutt instead of a pure breed retriever or don't hold developing countries to the same Kyoto standards.
I think if this were a REAL issue the people squawking the loudest (hippiesmell and reefers in general) would put their own prescription into action. Instead we burn untold amounts of energy for what, a tank full of fish? [/B]

You really need to open your ears and turn your brain on,and you will realise what people are trying to get across.

You can have 1000 reef tanks running and it would be fine. IF the power was generated in a non polluting way. DO YOU GET IT YET?

[Sk8r]

I was quite shocked when I ran the cnet hybrid cars buying guide calculator and discovered how much carbon [something like 5 lbs] my Subaru Forester is injecting into the air annually, above what a hybrid would. I also took the 'carbon footprint' test and discovered that despite driving over 4000 miles a year and running a lot of tech equipment, I have a very minimal carbon footprint---the 'average' was over a hundred pounds a year, which if you multiply by all of us, is a whole lot.
This isn't the only episode human civilization has had with climate change and pollution. The natural drying since the last ice age has widened the Sahara: in Roman times it was possible to walk in the shade from Gibraltar to the Nile Delta: now of course it's desert. So the planet has lost that broad greenbelt that kept the Med's air cleaner---while much of Europe's north was forested; that was cut down by charcoalers in the middle ages, etc, and put into the atmosphere. Or hewn off the Scottish isles by shipwrights; the massive timbers of Scandanavia are only seen now in historic houses: they're gone. So Europe was pretty well deforested over a 500 year span, and a lot of that was burned even before we began excavating the Carboniferous Era forests [coal seams, oil shales] to start burning those---we'd run out of the green-growing sort. So the next 500 years were pretty dirty, and the footprint of a Londoner in the 1880's was pretty sooty.

We've gotten better in that regard: as late as the 1960's, London air would blacken your nostrils and your handkerchiefs, and it hurt the lungs on some days. I was there, and remember having to be careful touching anything white if I hadn't washed my hands. Now they're replanting the lost forests of the Hebrides and trying to reforest some areas in Europe, but in the meanwhile, worldwide demand for materials and increased population in formerly sparsely inhabited areas has entrepreneurs deforesting the Pacific isles and the much larger Amazon at an even faster rate, so it's still a net loss. It's not just the loss of species: [Lord knows what species, beside the last European aurochs, we annihilated in the European forests]---it's the loss of green-space that does the O/C02 cycle, and helps take the carbon out into more biomass. Pound for pound, we're doing way better in some areas, and thankfully we're cleaning up some of the real Cold War era messes like some of the mining towns in Poland---but the net trend is still toward bigger and bigger emissions [burning not only this century's forests, but the forests of millions of years of pre-human times, all at once] and toward less and less greenbelt, be it part of the post Iceage drying or the action of man. It's a bad intersection of our habits with the natural cycle of ice ages and dry-outs. We're collectively not quite as bad as the dino-killing meteor strike---hard to compete with a global firestorm--- but we could do better.

[Cronus]

I would agree with you there, far from man made CO2 being the primary problem i would argue that mans short sightedness in cutting down vast regions of forest and removing the planets natural ability to process the CO2 in the atmosphere as a bigger issue.
We have people left right and center complaining about man made CO2 driven climate change and yet we are still cutting down masses of rain forest thats only going to increase the problem and then you have idiots with their carbon offsets that plant 'a tree or two' to justify their 2000mile private jet trip.
From my understanding all timber sourced from Europe has to come from sustainable tree farms now and i believe that tree coverage is increasing year on year, in Britain our forests have grown from 5% to 12% and is still rising.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
I remember this, thanks for posting it. This is an excellent article showing how far some people will go to hide an issue that is supposedly "fake".

Remember George Deutsch, the 24-yr-old Bush appointee at NASA who said that it was his job "to make the president look good" and that part of that was censoring Dr. James E. Hansen, NASA's superstar expert on global warming. The guy who refused to allow N.P.R. to interview Dr. Hansen because they were "the most liberal" media outlet in the country, according to a fellow NASA employee who was present at the meeting. The 24-yr-old journalism graduate who decreed that all of Dr. Hansen's public speeches would have to be cleared in advance though his office. The guy who ordered that all requests by the media to interview Dr. Hansen would now require his advance approval.

That guy!

The one who worked on George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. The one whose resume claims that he graduated from Texas A&M in 2003 with a degree in journalism.

Why should a 24-yr-old kid with a degree in journalism get to decide what is acceptable speech by one of NASA's leading scientists? Is he an astronomer? Is he a chemist? Is he a physicist? No, he's just a "journalist."

Oops!

Turns out he's not even that. A blogger discovered that he didn't graduate from Texas A&M after all. In fact, he has no degree in journalism or anything else for that matter. Well, maybe he has a degree in cronyism?

Don't you have to pass a background investigation to go to work for NASA? Wouldn't they check your resume as part of that investigation? I guess not. Maybe they don't do background investigations on political appointees? Or maybe they're just not very good at running background investigations? Maybe they should just ask the liberal bloggers to help them check out prospective Bush appointees in the future. The guy who uncovered this little deception happens to be a biochemist who graduated from Texas A&M recently. Nothing like checking with your old alma mater to find out the status of an alumnus.

P.S. -- I forgot to mention that the 24-yr-old Bush appointee "resigned" from NASA the same day his lie about graduating from Texas A&M was exposed by that blogger.

[Ninong]

I forgot to post the original comments that Dr. Hansen made a year ago about the Bush Administration's censorship tactics:

From the SF Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2006:

New York -- James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who sparked an uproar last month by accusing the Bush administration of keeping scientific information from reaching the public, said Friday that officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also muzzling researchers who study global warming.

Hansen, speaking on a panel about science and the environment to a packed audience at the New School university, said that while he hopes his own agency will soon adopt a more open policy, NOAA insists on having "a minder" monitor its scientists when they discuss findings with journalists.

"It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," said Hansen, prompting a round of applause. He added that while NOAA officials said they maintain the policy for their scientists' "protection, if you buy that one please see me at the break, because there's a bridge down the street I'd like to sell you."

[Ninong]

Originally posted by yrema
tagging along

[subscribe]

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Ninong
Remember George Deutsch, the 24-yr-old Bush appointee at NASA who said that it was his job "to make the president look good" and that part of that was censoring Dr. James E. Hansen, NASA's superstar expert on global warming.

Yup. There have been many appointees that have turned out to be completely unqualified, but since you're in Louisiana I'm sure that's painfully obvious. Horse racing anyone?

Originally posted by Ninong
Hansen, speaking on a panel about science and the environment to a packed audience at the New School university, said that while he hopes his own agency will soon adopt a more open policy, NOAA insists on having "a minder" monitor its scientists when they discuss findings with journalists.

A "minder"? Creepy. Sounds like 1984.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Cronus
Carbon trading seems to be more about economics and making vast amounts of money than saving the planet...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...3/b4027057.htm

http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/02/emission_tradin.html

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carniv...es_inconv.html

Once you've had a sift through that then you can tell me if you still think it's a great system in it's present format.
Gore would be considered a conman in any other walk of life but because he parades himself as a climate warrior he's held up on a pedestal of greatness.

In its present format, it's not that great. If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I wanted carbon offsets to work like sulfur dioxide offsets, which they don't, as mentioned in two of your articles:

"The problems with the European Trading Scheme are well documented with the collapse in the price of a tonne of carbon dating back to May last year when it emerged that most countries in the scheme had set their carbon caps far too high, resulting in fewer firms than expected having to buy credits and causing the price of a tonne of carbon to plummet from over €30 to less than €10."

"Done carefully, offsets can have a positive effect and raise ecological awareness."

"In the absence of a mandatory national cap, some Americans have begun taking action on their own, but without widely recognized standards as to what constitutes a valid offset."

As you can see, the government has to create carbon limits (uh-oh, the "g" word) for this to work. If you're trying to make this program look bad by showing that a few companies made questionable business deals, my comment is, "what else is new in business?".

[Ninong]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Yup. There have been many appointees that have turned out to be completely unqualified, but since you're in Louisiana I'm sure that's painfully obvious. Horse racing anyone?

I think you mean Arabian Horse breeding.

A "minder"? Creepy. Sounds like 1984.

Sounds like Scientology, too.

[virginiadiver69]

Originally posted by Rossini
You really need to open your ears and turn your brain on,and you will realise what people are trying to get across.

You can have 1000 reef tanks running and it would be fine. IF the power was generated in a non polluting way. DO YOU GET IT YET?

NO! Give me an example of a non-polluting way. I am not aware of solar or wind powered reef tanks. Do YOU or any others follow that example assuming there is one? Or do you run your MH 12 hrs. a day, use a chiller because your water is too hot BECAUSE of the MH and waste 4 gals of water for every 5 gals of water filtered through your ro/di unit?

[virginiadiver69]

Originally posted by scottras
I guess its nice and comfy watching other people do the work to try and save your way of life.

WHAT WORK! All I see is people pontificating on what SHOULD be done but not actualy doing it themselves.

Originally posted by scottras
Do you always have a go at charities?

I have no problem with charities and I don't remember saying I did. I DO have a problem with guilt being the motivator.

Originally posted by scottras

I don't burn untolds amount of energy for a tank full of fish. The quantity is very measurable and I am trying to reduce it with every evolution of the tank. In fact on the weekend I managed to reduce my constant energy consumption by 20W. My goal (a long way off atm) is to be carbon neutral or even negative. Hopefully within 10 years.

Hopefully within 10 yrs huh? Too bad that's when the world is due to end.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
NO! Give me an example of a non-polluting way. I am not aware of solar or wind powered reef tanks.

Uh, if your electricity comes from a wind farm or solar panels, your tank will be powered by wind farms and solar panels. Lol, shocking, I know.

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
WHAT WORK! All I see is people pontificating on what SHOULD be done but not actualy doing it themselves.

That's because this is the internet, and we don't have webcams. You can't see any of us doing anything. Thank god.

[scottras]

WHAT WORK! All I see is people pontificating on what SHOULD be done but not actualy doing it themselves.

I think you need to have a look around a bit more. There are plenty of people trying their hardest to do their best for the planet and its inhabitants. Then of course there are people who do nothing or even worse the people that try to stop good being done.

I have no problem with charities and I don't remember saying I did. I DO have a problem with guilt being the motivator.

So you just have a problem with charity? Sorry for the mistake.
I have no problem with whatever motivates people to help one another.

Hopefully within 10 yrs huh? Too bad that's when the world is due to end.

Due to who's predictions? I have never seen anything that says the world will end in ten years. Thats the trouble with misinformation, you never know who starts it for what reason.

I know you feel that most environmentalists are arrogant, but I think the real problem is the doubter’s ignorance.

[Cronus]

Thought i would post up a link of a bibliography by Dr Madhav Khandekar of peer-reviewed climate science papers, critical of the IPCC's politicised version of the science.

http://friendsofscience.org/document...Feb%206-07.pdf

[Rossini]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
NO! Give me an example of a non-polluting way. I am not aware of solar or wind powered reef tanks. Do YOU or any others follow that example assuming there is one? Or do you run your MH 12 hrs. a day, use a chiller because your water is too hot BECAUSE of the MH and waste 4 gals of water for every 5 gals of water filtered through your ro/di unit?

hahaha you're not the sharpest nail in the box are you....

Are you not aware of electricty generated from wind power?

By the way all my electricty comes from Wind farms its a deal set up with my electricty supplier N Power.

A whole lot more needs to be done to get more wind farms,tidal etc etc. In fact a revolution in energy production needs to happen. Thats what us tree huggers and people with half a brain or more want.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Cronus
Thought i would post up a link of a bibliography by Dr Madhav Khandekar of peer-reviewed climate science papers, critical of the IPCC's politicised version of the science.

http://friendsofscience.org/document...Feb%206-07.pdf

Ahhhh. Another "Friends of Science" gem. I'm sure the paper is as unbiased as it is brilliant.

[Cronus]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Ahhhh. Another "Friends of Science" gem. I'm sure the paper is as unbiased as it is brilliant.

Haha...another example of a pro GW fanatic dismissing data out of hand....exactly what you accuse AGW fanatics of doing.

[billsreef]

Originally posted by Rossini
hahaha you're not the sharpest nail in the box are you....

[chimp]


Come on folks, the personal barbs need to stay out of these discussions.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Cronus
Haha...another example of a pro GW fanatic dismissing data out of hand....exactly what you accuse AGW fanatics of doing.

I skimmed it, and it was exactly what I thought it would be. There wasn't anything in there that I haven't seen many, many times before. The arguments weren't viable then, and they aren't viable now. It's still the same old think tank fodder, worth about as much as the paper it was printed on.

[Cronus]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
I skimmed it, and it was exactly what I thought it would be. There wasn't anything in there that I haven't seen many, many times before. The arguments weren't viable then, and they aren't viable now. It's still the same old think tank fodder, worth about as much as the paper it was printed on.

Ignorance is bliss, peer reviewed papers are hardly 'think tank fodder' and are far more viable than you care to give credit for.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Cronus
Ignorance is bliss, peer reviewed papers are hardly 'think tank fodder' and are far more viable than you care to give credit for.

There's nothing wrong with the papers they are discussing, as you're correct, they are peer reviewed. It's the annotations I have an issue with. It's the spin and the doubt that is cast on REAL science that is the problem. It's classic think tank fodder.

[HippieSmell]

I'll make a deal with you. If you feel there is something in there that is particularly compelling, let us know, and I'll discuss it using my blissful ignorance.