Rewriting The Science: How the Bush Administration is Lying to You!

Yes, but why are they editing these reports?
Who is the ultimate responsible party?

Isn’t it us consumers that keep handing them the cash they need to operate their corporate structure to begin with. Isn’t it us that have made the SUV the fad yuppie car to have, despite knowing full well what amount of fuel they consume and that they might hurt the environment?

Anyone that says they have not heard the theory of global warming possibly being due to carbon fuel emissions is a liar. Anyone that knew this and yet bought a gas guzzler is EVERY BIT as guilty as the corporations that they handed their money over too.

So, who is ultimately responsible here?
They are simply profiting from letting people do what it is they want to do without having to hear about the consequences. Isn’t that what most people want now a days anyway? Do what they want and then go stick their head in a hole, like an ostrich, when someone brings up the consequences. I cannot tell you how often now that I have had people tell me that they don’t want to hear any “negativity”, when I talk about things I see going on in the world. Seems to be another new trend, narcissism, denial, and ignorance…

By the way; no, I don’t drive an SUV…

I dunno, after reading all of this, and what Muaddib posted, maybe it is reasonable that the administration "tone down" a bit of the hype over global warming, so as to keep it in check and in proportion to what it really is. Can anyone say for sure? Science isn't always right, and on an issue this big, with such far reaching consequences, I think it is important that there be balanced input from both sides of the fence. But either way, the projected results don't look too good.

Ok, I am not 100% certain but it is what I think is happening. I will state it as a question.

What if there was an event that is causing all of this global warming all over the solar system, and it is something that if people knew about, and it was made public by the governments of the world panic will prevail?

I see many people believing that "we as adults should be able to make that decision of whether or not we should know this", but the problem is that once you know such a hypotherical cause, which could be causing all the global warming problems which keep increasing in the solar system, then there is no going back.

A large majority of people would believe that "since there is nothing we can do about it, let me do anything and everything that I want to do, even if it breaks the law. Who cares if they put me in prison afterwards, if things are going to get a lot worse."

Some people want to assume that humans will all act as rational beings if such an announcement was made, but people who know and have lived through disasters which have been announced, know that there will be many people that will be hysterical, panicky, there will be those who will commit crimes and if they didn't know they would think about committing a crime twice or three times before doing so. If such as announcement is made chaos will prevail instead of order, despite some people claiming we will all act as human rational beings.

I could very well be wrong, but wouldn't a hypotherical situation like the one described above be enough grounds not to tell the public was is going on and trying to sway most of the scientific community in finding what is causing these problems?

BTW, in case you don't know by now, I am not a government agent, or someone who works for the government and knows for certain whether or not this is true, it is only what I think.


[edit on 21-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Muaddib, while what you say there may be possible. what if there is not enough convincing scientific evidence to make a decision either way? Still, you raise an interesting point. So we are all doomed huh? I wonder if this ties in with 2012 prophesy. Or even, what if the government knows such things, and is making its moves now, such as in the middle east to secure resources for the barren, doomsday future awaiting us? The underground bunkers... Oh dear, you really got my mind spinning NOW, thanks...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
....................
Or even, what if the government knows such things, and is making its moves now, such as in the middle east to secure resources for the barren, doomsday future awaiting us? The underground bunkers... Oh dear, you really got my mind spinning NOW, thanks...

That could also be possible.

BTW, I don't believe that the world is going to end, but I also believe that noone can say that natural disasters are not getting worse and worse each year, and that the same thing is happening all over the solar system.

I do believe dramatic changes are ahead for us, and people should make preparations just in case.

Some people believe that the govenrment, or governments should do everything for them, preparations and everything, and when people are not prepared, they then blame the government for their own failure to be prepared.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Some people believe that the govenrment, or governments should do everything for them, preparations and everything, and when people are not prepared, they then blame the government for their own failure to be prepared.

Yeah, but what do ya do when the governments are preparing it all for themselves and their survival, knowing that without their tremendous resources, the average person has no chance of survival in such circumstances? What's the point of preparing at all if it takes living in specially prepared, 10 zillion dollar underground facilities for ten years to overcome and survive the coming doom? So yeah, I can see why they'd withhold the news....There'd be mayhem on earth.

There is three problems with this guy: one he worked for NASA 30 years ago! Two, he now is involved with a lefty outfit which makes me wonder if he is only being used for political effect, and three if he follows what NASA says then he knows that climate change is affecting ALL the planets in our solar system.

This is the second time today that I have made this very valid point on this story.

Why is anyone surprised that politicians and their cronies rewrite facts? It is not good for business to deal with global warming. We would all have to make significant sacrifices to reverse this process. Only when we are willing to give up our automobiles will there be a reversal of this process. When states or corporations exceed the emissions permitted them they are able to purchase the unused allocations from those who have made the needed changes (i.e., those who don't pollute as much). Just doing away with that practice would force dramatic changes. When earning a graduate degree in business I learned that only one thing mattered. For those readers who have just arrived from other planets, that would be money. When, and only when, the general populus recognizes the need for change will there be any movement in that direction. Politicians want to keep their jobs. Problem is, however, we have short memories and are terribly egocentric and geocentric. If it helps my city, and me personally, I really don't worry too much about how that might impact you. And I will vote for anyone who will help me. Has anyone followed the Tom Delay situation? Known as The Hammer for his vindictive ways towards those with whom he disagreed, he was dethroned in D.C. and is under indictment for major ethics and fraud activities and has just won in a recent primary. People in Texas don't care whether he is honest or not, or whether he has any interest in the common good so long as he benefits those down home. So there it is. It is all about politics, influence, and money. Speaking of Texas, is that not where Dubya hails from?

So, to quote Pogo, "I have seen the enemy and he is us."

Mauddib/TrueAmerican: Interesting discussion.

One thing, though, the more I read about the "global warming" of other planets, the more speculative and uncertain I think that is... We just don't know as much as we do about our own planetary dynamics. For example, this article says:

"We can now accurately count craters in the layered materials of the polar regions to get an idea how old they are," said Phil Christensen of Arizona State University, Tempe, principal investigator for the camera system.

Temperature information from the camera system's infrared imaging has produced a surprise about dark patches that dot bright expanses of seasonal carbon-dioxide ice.

"Those dark features look like places where the ice has gone away, but thermal infrared maps show that even the dark areas have temperatures so low they must be carbon-dioxide ice." Christensen said. "One possibility is that the ice is clear in these areas and we're seeing down through the ice to features underneath."

Source.

On a different matter:

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
There is three problems with this guy: one he worked for NASA 30 years ago!

What are you talking about? He is the CURRENT Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science. Read the bio posted at the beginning of this thread.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Two, he now is involved with a lefty outfit which makes me wonder if he is only being used for political effect,

What "lefty" outfit would you be referring to?

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
and three if he follows what NASA says then he knows that climate change is affecting ALL the planets in our solar system.

See my response to point number one.

:shk:

For the others, you will note that Hansen actually has a great deal of experience in the climatology of other planets. His official NASA bio states:

His early research on the properties of clouds of Venus led to their identification as sulfuric acid.

Source.

It would be interesting to email him and ask his opinion on the articles you mention, Mauddib.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA

E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 678-5500

Any takers?


[edit on 21-3-2006 by loam]

Climate - like most everything - is influenced by multiple factors.

The big scientific breakthrough of our age was 'complex systems theory' - and it applies to everything from geophysical upheaval to cellular and microbial mutation.

But 'complex systems theory' is suppressed as fast as it is developed.

These days, systems theory is applied to the stock market - but "science," our handlers tell us, is about single direct and absolutely provable cause-and-effect.

Bull puckey. That line is nothing but a legal political dance. It's a "position." Designed to avoid liability.

Muaddib, i know we are all in the same solar system, but i am trying to say that different planets would have different compositions to them , proximity to the sun, etc, that might make it difficult in the here and now for scientists to make a comparison.

I'm going to research this, and this isnt a mission to prove Bush wrong. Not at all,. I need some things answered and i think i know where to go to get that answer.

I will let you know if i find anything new and revealing.

Update, i just email my source and if i get an answer, any answer i will post it here. I have exchanged many emails with him and he is extremely knowledgeable in all this.
The source is from the UK and it will be surprising.

By the way, i am ready to eat crow.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by dgtempe]

Isn't the debate over the mechanism of global warming moot? Not saying the man -vs- nature -vs- both debate over what causes GW isn't an important discussion to be having. But it always seems to end up where one advocate (eg, GW is natural) stating we've experienced these warming-cooling trends in the past and this modern trend is no different. While that may be a true statement (imo it is) it overlooks the very real problem of our ever increasing population and the differences between past civilizations and today's, no?




Seems to me that whether GW is man-made, a natural cycle, or combination there-of, it's secondary to how on earth do we deal with it given our current population and extent of civilization around the globe, no?

Or is the assumption that the change will be gradual enough as to allow us to adapt and deal with the changing evironment as we need too? Can anybody tell me what sort of time scales we're dealing with here? I've not spent alot of time researching this so i may be missing the big picture, but it seems the argument of mechanism is a bit of a red herring imho.

How could we possibly deal with this on such a scale? Almost everybody, on both sides, seems to think it's coming and we can't or it's too late to do anything about it. Is that a true statement?

Sorry for all the questions and no real input, but like i said i'm still pretty new to the finer points of the debate.

Regards,
-Rren

Good comments.


More info for the pot:

A 34-year trend of intensifying hurricanes has now been tied to warmer sea surface waters which, in turn, is being caused by global warming, say scientists.

By carefully analyzing climate data from every ocean from 1970 to 2004, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have found that the only factor that has steadily climbed in concert with the power of hurricanes over those 34 years is the surface temperatures of the oceans.

Stronger Hurricanes Tied to Global Warming

***

Thirty miles from the Arctic Circle, hunter Noah Metuq feels the Arctic changing. Its frozen grip is loosening; the people and animals who depend on its icy reign are experiencing a historic reshaping of their world.

Fish and wildlife are following the retreating ice caps northward. Polar bears are losing the floes they need for hunting. Seals, unable to find stable ice, are hauling up on islands to give birth. Robins and barn owls and hornets, previously unknown so far north, are arriving in Arctic villages. ...The global warming felt by wildlife and increasingly documented by scientists is hitting first and hardest here, in the Arctic where the Inuit people make their home. The hardy Inuit -- described by one of their leaders as "sentries for the rest of the world" -- say this winter was the worst in a series of warm winters, replete with alarms of the quickening transformation that many scientists believe will spread from the north to the rest of the globe.

The Inuit -- with homelands in Alaska, Canada, Greenland and northern Russia -- saw the signs of change everywhere. Metuq hauled his fishing shack onto the ice of Cumberland Sound last month, as he has every winter, confident it would stay there for three months. Three days later, he was astonished to see the ice break up, sweeping away his shack and $6,000 of turbot fishing gear. ...In Nain, Labrador, hunter Simon Kohlmeister, 48, drove his snowmobile onto ocean ice where he had hunted safely for 20 years. The ice flexed. The machine started sinking. He said he was "lucky to get off" and grab his rifle as the expensive machine was lost. "Someday we won't have any snow," he said. "We won't be Eskimos."

‘It's getting very strange up here’ ...Metuq, the hunter, fears the worst. "The world is slowly disintegrating," he said, inside his heated house in Pangnirtung, a community of 1,200 perched on a dramatic union of mountain and fjord on Baffin Island. Seal skins stretched on canvas dried outside his home. The town remained treacherous. Rain in February had frozen solid, and there had been almost no snow to cover it. ..."They call it climate change," he said. "But we just call it breaking up."

Inuit alarmed by signs of global warming

no question he is beiung told to shut his mouth.....the strange thing is why this topic and why now if it was bush why care hes in his last term. the real question is what do the others he wors with says b/c the word of one man isnt wirth the ground he walks on. why has none of the others spoken out is it fear or a difrence in profesional opinion. good links loam i have to say. this is a way above for you in the mean time ill look for the others the ones that dont speak out!

Difference of "professional" opinion my Aunt Fanny's butt.

Bush is silencing scientists across the board - with Executive Orders, written and unwritten policy and in other ways too. Check this thread out for more details.

U.S. Still Silencing Scientists

Originally posted by soficrow
As usual loam

Very much agree with you on this

So - it's not the scientists saying the science is uncertain, it's the politicians and lawyers. ...And this does not apply only to climatology - it's true across the board.

Well the scientist are not in fact in agreement( edit : sorry i just checked out some of your other posts and i now realise you full well know this) on what the exact causes is themselves and there IS a great deal of argument going on. The fact that it's being marginalised/hidden from perception in favour of the " it's humans , stupid " logic of environmental destruction, that gets all the media attention, is what we should be looking at. Why should human progress be so retarded when we are not even sure what the exact causes are? I am obviously not for ANY destruction of the environment but if i have to choose between humans starving and thieving and dangerous colonies of 'protected' bears you know where i stand! Shoot the dangerous one's and feed someone.

[iAll our science is reviewed as a legal position, not as science. Lawyers and politicians demand proof of direct cause-and-effect relationships - and dismiss proofs of interractions in complex systems.

Well actually politicians normally just pick what suits their agenda and then task the lawyers to defend a certain scientific point of view. That is if they have to go that far considering that science has turned into a faith-based 'institution' that spend most of it's energy defending current dogma against all comers , whatever the cost, employing the fraud that is 'peer'-review.

Duh. Science does not follow the one-on-one adversarial rules of the justice system. But they're trying to make it do that.

Science is worse (IMO) as scientist who have all the tools deliberately put their heads in the sand when it comes to alternative views when presented with mechanisms ( like peer-review and directed funding schemes, "research-this-and-you-get-money". that can lead the scientific community exactly where big business and their political lackeys want) that are designed to defend dogma to the exclusion of all things novel/exciting.

Stellar



[edit on 23-3-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by loam
I can understand the temptation to have yet another debate in this thread about whether man is responsible for Global Warming...I , in fact, remain undecided concerning the degree to which we are responsible, or the extent to which we can do anything about it.

Well informed stance to take ( well it's what i believe anyways ) as there are so many variable's and so many people clearly busy cooking the books.

However, what I find MOST disturbing is that NON-scientists in our government are rewriting, spinning or hiding the scientific opinions (and even fact) of its own scientists. I find that UNACCEPTABLE.

How can i put this gently... ? Uh... Did you presume this to be a new development or that government are anywhere near as bad as the science community itself? If honest scientist( and thair general absence might be the reason it's so easy for the government to manage this ) came out and told the truth there is NOTHING government could do to prevent them from getting the word out. Just like the people enable the governments lies, by letting it get away with them, so the lying self-interested science community enable's the government to keep the public at large massively ignorant of scientific disagreement.

Hey that's my rant for today ( second one) and it's honestly not aimed at you. If your going to be angry be angry because your words were employed for a purpose you did not intend.

Stellar

NASA Enacts Reforms

In what is being described as a new "commitment to openness" -- NASA's administrator in Washington issued a new communications policy.

Administrator Michael D. Griffin said Thursday the policy details the role of those who release information to the public directly or through the news media, The New York Times reported Friday.

Griffin said the new policy ensures that NASA scientists and engineers can discuss their work in public and state their opinions, however, when they state a personal opinion, the NASA scientist should make clear that it is personal and not agency policy.

More...

Good.

Let's hope it's true.

And then again....maybe not...

Researcher alleges climate cover-up

The American public is not hearing the full story on global warming because Bush administration officials are muzzling government scientists, a top climate researcher said Wednesday.
Warren Washington, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, said that Bush appointees are suppressing information about climate change, restricting journalists' access to federal scientists and rewriting agency news releases to stress global warming uncertainties.

"The news media is not getting the full story, especially from government scientists," Washington told about 160 people attending the first day of "Climate Change and the Future of the American West," a three-day conference sponsored by the University of Colorado's Natural Resources Law Center.

More...