Yet Another in a Long Line of Setbacks for the Global Warming Alarmists

[off piste]

We'd better see a catastrophic hurricane season soon, or all that ground we won in the Golden Age of Katrina is gonna be lost.......


http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKWAT00798920070809

Forecasters see less active '07 hurricane season

Thu Aug 9, 2007 9:40PM BST
By Christopher Doering
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - This Atlantic hurricane season will be slightly less active than predicted, with up to nine hurricanes expected to form, the U.S. government's top climate agency forecast on Thursday.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the 2007 season could produce between 13 and 16 named storms, with seven to nine becoming hurricanes and three to five of these classified as "major" hurricanes.
In May, NOAA predicted 13 to 17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to five could develop into major ones with winds of over 110 miles per hour (177 kph).
"The conditions are ripe for an above-normal season," said NOAA meteorologist Gerry Bell. "The fact that we've seen no hurricanes so far means absolutely nothing."
The Atlantic hurricane season, which ends on November 30, typically peaks between August 1 and late October. In June and July, an average of only one or two named storms develop. So far this season, there have been three named storms in the Atlantic -- Andrea, Barry and Chantal.
NOAA's seasonal outlooks do not specify where and when tropical storms and hurricanes could strike. Still, forecasters said similar hurricane seasons have generated two to four storms that made landfall in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
Bell said the more narrow range of activity since May reflects the development of a weaker-than-expected La Nina and a cooler sea surface in the eastern tropical Atlantic.
La Nina, which means "girl" in Spanish, is an unusual cooling of Pacific Ocean surface temperatures and can trigger widespread changes in weather around the world, including a higher-than-normal number of hurricanes in the Atlantic.
There was a "greater than 50 percent" chance that the weather anomaly La Nina will form during the peak of the hurricane season, NOAA said.
U.S. weather forecasters, including private and university researchers, all have recently lowered their hurricane outlooks due to cooler-than-expected ocean surface temperatures.
Last week, a Colorado State University team of hurricane experts, led by William Gray, predicted 15 tropical storms, with eight growing to hurricane strength. That was down from an earlier forecast of 17 storms and nine hurricanes. WSI Corporation and London-based Tropical Storm Risk also have cut their forecasts.
A year ago, forecasters also predicted an active season, but the unexpected development of El Nino was widely credited with curtailing hurricanes in the Atlantic, giving a respite to the U.S. Gulf Coast and Central American countries hit hard during the record-setting hurricane season of 2005.
"This year, there is no chance of El Nino," said Bell.
Last season produced 10 tropical storms, of which five became hurricanes and two turned into intense hurricanes. The average hurricane season generates 9.6 named storms, 5.9 hurricanes and 2.3 major storms.
Oil markets, already on edge due to tight supplies that sent U.S. oil futures to a record high of $78.77 a barrel on August 1, are closely watching hurricane activity.
"This is the time of year when hurricanes become a force in oil supply," said Robert Ebel, an energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "The market is so sensitive to anything that could impact the supply side."
In 2005, hurricanes Katrina and Rita tore through the heart of the U.S. oil patch in the Gulf of Mexico, toppling 113 offshore platforms, smashing undersea pipelines and shutting down about a quarter of U.S. oil-refining capacity.
The resulting disruption in gasoline supplies sent pump prices skyrocketing to record highs at the time of just above $3 a gallon.

[kernel crash]

I found the following post this morning on the Huffington Post. Try following this logic. This is about as twisted as it gets.

"It may be a terrible thing to say, but we need lots of big, destructive hurricanes to get joe average to buy into the idea of climate change. If we have a few quiet seasons in a row all of the momentum will be lost. As we have seen so clearly in recent years, fear gets Americans attention better than anything else. These storms could save us all."

[Slappy]

Maybe Algore could rig something up, kinda like GWB planned 9-11.

You bunch of f'ing wackjobs...:rolleyes:

[off piste]

http://home.comcast.net/%7Ewb1hjs/moonbat.jpg

[kernel crash]

I guess all these guys are in the tank with big oil.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

[SkotOn]

Global Warming is coming! Hurry up! LEt's stake our claim in the North pole so we can find more oil and burn more fossil fuels!!!

[splat]

This is a Very good read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UKTOFFAWKY4ARQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml

No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

A scare is often set off - as we show in our book with other examples - when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in consultation with governments and officials - essentially a political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

[noreaster]

These "points" are all the same ones I've debunked in previous posts. Feel free to browse the archives. No point in repeating myself.

How about posting something about Australians voting out their neo-con PM and replacing him with someone who promised to sign Kyoto as one of his very first acts in office? That would be new.

[Slider]

Here's the problem that a lack of logic creates. You take a statement like this:

"500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares"

People who don't reason through it take away the idea that this somehow means the science is faulty. That's why the various propaganda mills pump out this kind of crap. Nothing like a sound bite to sway a weak mind.

So think about what the quote really says. It says science is in action, and working. 500 scientists have checked the work of others and found ways to improve the reasoning. Did the 500 say "There's no CO2 related warming"? Of course not! They said things like "the temperature rise may be lower over the next decade" or, as likely, higher. Science is exactly the process of refining theories. Science is cumulative.

The study of evolution is a good example. Creationists always say "But it is a theory." Of course it is. Everything we know about life is a theory. But evolution is a very well-studied and well-founded one. Have the fine points been honed over the years? YES! That is what science does!

There is no research in existence that implies that CO2 is not a substantial contributor to warming. None. Anywhere.

Slider

[noreaster]

Slider, will you quit it with all your "sense" and "facts?" Those are the tools of the devil!

[kernel crash]

"There is no research in existence that implies that CO2 is not a substantial contributor to warming. None. Anywhere.

Slider"

Yes but the amount of that contribution is what's in question. I read recently that the raising of livestock for the production of meat, as in food products, causes more Co2 than all the gas guzzling vehicles combined. The bottom line is mans contribution is almost insignificant on the grand scale of things. We'd be better off if we listened to more of this guy.


Lomborg, author of the best-selling book "The Sceptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World," acknowledges that the climate is warming but insists greenhouse gases "are not the priority over all priorities." The 42-year-old Dane, who once headed Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, has for years been speaking out against the increasingly mainstream concern that global warming is causing sea levels to rise and changing weather patterns in a way that will soon wreak havoc on world ecosystems and all of humankind.

"There are other global challenges to address this century like the battle against AIDS, malaria, malnutrition and poverty," he told AFP. He acknowledges that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could prevent damages of 4,820 billion dollars by the end of the century. However, he insists the measures to do so would cost anywhere between 4,575 and 37,632 billion dollars during the same period.

Lomborg figured on Time Magazine's list of the world's most influential people in 2004 and was ranked as the world's 14th most influential academic by the respected US magazine Foreign Policy and the British monthly Prospect a year later. In his latest book, "Cool It," published this year, the Dane violently attacks the Kyoto Protocol on climate change for being "too expensive and inefficient" and calls on world leaders to "keep their cool" and to avoid "a state of panic that will prevent them from making rational decisions."

"I don't refute global warming. It is real but has been exaggerated by many. We must stop this climate obsession and address other more urgent problems," he said. "Reducing CO2 emissions will not make the world a better place to live," he said, insisting that "even if we do achieve the fixed (emission reduction) objectives, we will only slow global warming by two years by the end of the century." "That's very little for a lot of money," Lomborg said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071205071401.71zof1er&show_article=1

[Slider]

This is really more of the same. Semantics that just don't stand up.

What cost is associated with the destruction of New Orleans? Now add in ALL coastal cities. What planning is in process to protect them? What figures are being used as the foundation for that (non-existent) planning? What about crop failures? What plans are beiong made to address water shortages? What plans are being made for pestilence, disease etc.?

Only research prvides the data we need to identify and address issues that are as fundamental to our survival as any others. He mentions poverty. How much of THAT will we see when half of Africa becomes desert? Will it be half, less or more? How do we find out?

There is no escaping the impact of severe climate change, and that is what the research says is in process, now. We CAN ignore CO2 production, and we will somehow survive. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.

Even the DOD is using climate data as it plans for our nation's security over the coming years. http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/02/25/pentagoners/
They predict immense political instability as a result of warming. Do we just ignore that too?

Slider

[kernel crash]

Look, show me the proof global warming is responsible for what happened in New Orleans. You can't. Nobody can. So why try to bolster your argument with such nonsense unless you feel the need to add to the hysteria. There's nothing you will ever say here to influence my thinking that this whole thing is way overblown. Nothing. Get it. Climate history, the sun and science are on my side. You are completely sucked in to the sky is falling swindle. So let's throw billions into something that will not make much of a difference in the long run. Not with my tax dollars I say. End of story. I will not get sucked back into this ridiculous round and round and round spin. ARRGGGHHHHH.

[Slider]

Nonsense? The MOST CLEAR consequence of warming is sea level rise. No one even argues against that. It is easily measurable, and there are many studies that predict it as a consequence. Where exactly do you think all those melting glaciers are going?

We don't even have to go into the also-established science that says more moisture in the air and higher temps mean more severe hurricanes. Higher sea levels alone mean lots of problems, especially when a hurricane is pushing the ocean at you. You don't need a research report to grasp that if you simply think about it.

But this says it all: "There's nothing you will ever say here to influence my thinking that this whole thing is way overblown. Nothing. Get it."

I DO get it. Clear as it needs to be, and that is exactly my point.

Slider

[noreaster]

Climate history, the sun and science are on my side.

Actually, none of that is on your side.

Saw a great quote today:

"Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong." - Paul Ehrlich


Which came from this article about Global Warming Skeptics from the Woods Hole Research Center. (http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm)

[MTBME]

Actually, none of that is on your side.

I'd say Climate History shows warming and cooling trends throughout the earths history.

Check out this on line quiz with about a dozen questions about global warming back with facts. Although I'm sure there are those who will find ways to punch holes in it. (By the way, I got them all right.)

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Testindex.html

[noreaster]

globalwarmingheartland
LOL!

I get all of my scientific facts from Google Ads, too. OK, so here is a think-tank of laymen with undisclosed donors. Yeah. Authoritative.

Next time I'm ill, I'm not going to ask a Doctor what's wrong with me, I'm going to go to a health care think tank staffed with laymen.

And you call us the kooks?

[MTBME]

I think it speaks volumes that you criticize the source not the information in that quiz.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I think it speaks volumes that you criticize the source not the information in that quiz.

I'm on your side in this, but come on, that quiz was a joke! It's not hard to figure out the motives behind the quiz creator. Question 8 was particularly difficult. What accounts for this chart? The Renaissaince or Cars and factories or the only non-idiotic answer?

[MTBME]

I hear what your saying. The answer with the chimney was kind of weak. I wouldn't want to stick my face in there and take a deep breath but I thought there were some relevant facts mixed in there that I will go back and pull out.

[noreaster]

Just incase you missed it, here's Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech (http://blog.algore.com/2007/12/nobel_prize_acceptance_speech.html). There's a video or the full transcript if you prefer. I'm sure you wouldn't want to miss it.

[kernel crash]

How much longer is Al Gore going to line his pockets green with this stuff???

[noreaster]

While we're at it with the videos, here's something that doesn't quite have the production values of "An Inconvenient Truth," but the guy's got some logic. Highly recommended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

[MTBME]

"The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels. One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food. It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol"

http://www.nysun.com/news/food-crisis-eclipsing-climate-change

[Slappy]

Now if that ain't a liberal dilemna....

I blame GWB.

[kernel crash]

"For the past thirty plus years we have allowed the environmental activists of the Democratic Party to, stop all forward movement in our national quest for energy independence. We know how to obtain oil from places such as Alaska, Wyoming and the Dakotas, but legislation to drill has been blocked. We know oil is waiting offshore, but we are not allowed to drill due to environmental impact, even though other nations are reaching for that same oil, just a few miles away.

We have even allowed these same activists to stop the building of new oil refineries for the past 30 years. Our energy demands from abroad could be reduced by nuclear power, but the socialist led environmentalists have swayed enough pandering politicians to stop the production of nuclear power plants. Other socialist-activists who hide behind the green wall of environmentalism have slowed the much touted wind farms of this country to almost a standstill. When construction is almost at hand there is always another call for a study to see if these wind farms will kill migrating birds, or perhaps block Ted Kennedy's oceanfront view."

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/tsegel/2008/ts_04251.shtml

[Slider]

Oil isn't the future, from anywhere.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Oil isn't the future, from anywhere.

Slider

No but it might buy us another 20 years or so until we find what is the future. Unless of course you prefer food shortages, riots, unrest, ...

[Slider]

I prefer development of a clean energy policy, something that we started on, until Bush completely ignored all applicable environmental law, gutted enforcement, and perverted the research.

Slider

EPA scientists complain about political pressure
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work. He said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, as a longtime career scientist at the EPA himself, "weighs heavily the science given to him by the staff in making policy decisions."

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a letter sent Wednesday to Johnson, called the survey results disturbing and said they "suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science." He said he planned to pursue the issue at an upcoming hearing by his Oversight and Government Reform Committee where Johnson is scheduled to testify.

The group sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The report said 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years. Four in 10 scientists who have worked at the agency for more than a decade said they believe such interference has been more prevalent in the last five years than in the previous five years.

Timothy Donaghy, one of the report's co-authors, acknowledged that a large number of scientists did not respond to the survey and said the findings should not be viewed as a random sample of EPA scientists.

Nevertheless, said Donaghy, "we have hundreds of scientists saying there is a problem" with assuring scientific integrity within the federal government's principal environmental regulatory agency.

Asked to respond to the survey, EPA spokesman Shradar said, "We have the best scientists in the world at EPA."

The EPA has been under fire from members of Congress on a number of fronts including its delay in determining whether carbon dioxide should be regulated to combat global warming. Johnson also has been criticized for rejecting recommendations from science advisory boards on a number of air pollution issues including control of mercury from power plants and how much to reduce smog pollution.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as senior managers and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists, the report said.

The survey covered employees at EPA headquarters, in each of the agency's 10 regions around the country and at more than a dozen research laboratories. The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemical cancer risk for humans.

Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document.

Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects "because of pressure to change scientific findings."

Donaghy said EPA management was aware of the survey, conducted by the Center for Survey Statistics & Methodology at Iowa State University. He said while some EPA managers initially instructed employees not to participate, the EPA's general counsel's office later sent an e-mail to employees saying they could participate on their private time.

[catbbq]

I prefer development of a clean energy policy, something that we started on, until Bush completely ignored all applicable environmental law, gutted enforcement, and perverted the research.

Slider

EPA scientists complain about political pressure
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work. He said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, as a longtime career scientist at the EPA himself, "weighs heavily the science given to him by the staff in making policy decisions."

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a letter sent Wednesday to Johnson, called the survey results disturbing and said they "suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science." He said he planned to pursue the issue at an upcoming hearing by his Oversight and Government Reform Committee where Johnson is scheduled to testify.

The group sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The report said 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years. Four in 10 scientists who have worked at the agency for more than a decade said they believe such interference has been more prevalent in the last five years than in the previous five years.

Timothy Donaghy, one of the report's co-authors, acknowledged that a large number of scientists did not respond to the survey and said the findings should not be viewed as a random sample of EPA scientists.

Nevertheless, said Donaghy, "we have hundreds of scientists saying there is a problem" with assuring scientific integrity within the federal government's principal environmental regulatory agency.

Asked to respond to the survey, EPA spokesman Shradar said, "We have the best scientists in the world at EPA."

The EPA has been under fire from members of Congress on a number of fronts including its delay in determining whether carbon dioxide should be regulated to combat global warming. Johnson also has been criticized for rejecting recommendations from science advisory boards on a number of air pollution issues including control of mercury from power plants and how much to reduce smog pollution.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as senior managers and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists, the report said.

The survey covered employees at EPA headquarters, in each of the agency's 10 regions around the country and at more than a dozen research laboratories. The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemical cancer risk for humans.

Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document.

Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects "because of pressure to change scientific findings."

Donaghy said EPA management was aware of the survey, conducted by the Center for Survey Statistics & Methodology at Iowa State University. He said while some EPA managers initially instructed employees not to participate, the EPA's general counsel's office later sent an e-mail to employees saying they could participate on their private time.

Its all hearsay and conjecture. Show me the peer reviewed articles.

[noreaster]

The problem is too much regular foodstuffs are converted and wasted. Corn sweetens WAY too much food. Processed foods dominate the American marketplace. Whereas sugar cane has no other real purpose, and is healthier. Corn is not what domesticated animals should be eating anyhow. For example, it is not natural for cows to eat grains at all. They're suppose to eat grass– yet another thing humans don't eat.

Don't blame "energy" or "Democrats" for this. Blame stupid farm policy and subsidies put forth by lobbyists and corporations instead of actual farm owners. The whole system is totally unsustainable. Maybe this crisis will shed some sunlight on that shady operation.

Oh, and if you're buying food with corn sweeteners and meats raised on grains, it's your fault. Stop passing the buck. Vote on what gets produced with your wallet.

[Slappy]

... until Bush completely ignored all applicable environmental law, gutted enforcement, and perverted the research.



See? I knew he was behind it all!

[kernel crash]

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

[Slider]

See? I knew he was behind it all!

You don't get much credit for that. Too much evidence to ignore. S**t, I'm only stating the obvious. Unfortunately, for some people, that counts as enlightenment.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

The problem is too much regular foodstuffs are converted and wasted. Corn sweetens WAY too much food. Processed foods dominate the American marketplace. Whereas sugar cane has no other real purpose, and is healthier. Corn is not what domesticated animals should be eating anyhow. For example, it is not natural for cows to eat grains at all. They're suppose to eat grass– yet another thing humans don't eat.

Don't blame "energy" or "Democrats" for this. Blame stupid farm policy and subsidies put forth by lobbyists and corporations instead of actual farm owners. The whole system is totally unsustainable. Maybe this crisis will shed some sunlight on that shady operation.

Oh, and if you're buying food with corn sweeteners and meats raised on grains, it's your fault. Stop passing the buck. Vote on what gets produced with your wallet.

That's easy to say, but the "buck" is the problem. Most people who eat beef will generally buy the regular, cheaper supermarket brand. The same goes for chicken and pork. The only way to force people to eat meat raised more naturally is with government regulation. And with the FDA easily and way too often swayed by industry lobbying, that's not going to happen anytime real soon. The corn industry is one of the most powerful agricultural lobbies.

I often wonder if people for the most part think that the FDA operates for our benefit. Hardly.

[hogboy]

The problem is too much regular foodstuffs are converted and wasted. Corn sweetens WAY too much food. Processed foods dominate the American marketplace. Whereas sugar cane has no other real purpose, and is healthier. Corn is not what domesticated animals should be eating anyhow. For example, it is not natural for cows to eat grains at all. They're suppose to eat grass– yet another thing humans don't eat.

Don't blame "energy" or "Democrats" for this. Blame stupid farm policy and subsidies put forth by lobbyists and corporations instead of actual farm owners. The whole system is totally unsustainable. Maybe this crisis will shed some sunlight on that shady operation.

Oh, and if you're buying food with corn sweeteners and meats raised on grains, it's your fault. Stop passing the buck. Vote on what gets produced with your wallet.



Hah !

OK, you have your sugar cane. if sugar cane production is increased, to offset a decrease in high fructose corn syrup and satisfy the next fat guy, say goodbye to even more rainforest because that is the limiter of sugar cane production. rain forests are in the way.

on a global scale, sugar derived from corn has less eco impact.

[catbbq]

The problem is too much regular foodstuffs are converted and wasted. Corn sweetens WAY too much food. Processed foods dominate the American marketplace. Whereas sugar cane has no other real purpose, and is healthier. Corn is not what domesticated animals should be eating anyhow. For example, it is not natural for cows to eat grains at all. They're suppose to eat grass– yet another thing humans don't eat.

Don't blame "energy" or "Democrats" for this. Blame stupid farm policy and subsidies put forth by lobbyists and corporations instead of actual farm owners. The whole system is totally unsustainable. Maybe this crisis will shed some sunlight on that shady operation.

Oh, and if you're buying food with corn sweeteners and meats raised on grains, it's your fault. Stop passing the buck. Vote on what gets produced with your wallet.

Have you ever had grass fed beef? It is healthier, both for you and the cow, but tastes different and is tougher. It has omega-3s. It is also really hard to find and expensive. Last time I saw it in a butcher shop, seems the price was close to $20 a pound for bone in ribeye, and as I said, it tastes different and is tough.

My wife has been "off" corn sweetener for a couple years now. Every trip to the grocery is like where's waldo. Three years ago it was tough to find even basic things like bread without corn syrup. It is getting easier though. More and more yuppies (or gen Y'ers or whatevers) are putting on the pressure, so brands line Nature's Promise and even big brands like Kellog's is advertising no corn syrup.

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.hfcsfacts.com/?gclid=CITxpuvm_ZICFQZlHgodg0p8xg

See if you can guess who sponsors this web site before you scroll to the bottom.

[Slider]

Let's talk politicization of science for while.

Slider

Watchdog: NASA misled on global warming studies
Story Highlights
Watchdog alleges "inappropriate political interference"

NASA's press office allegedly "mischaracterized" global warming studies

Inspector general's report blames "political appointees"

NASA says report is old news; problems have been fixed

WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA's press office "marginalized or mischaracterized" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency's own internal watchdog concluded.

In a report released Monday, NASA's inspector general office called it "inappropriate political interference" by political appointees in the press office. It said the agency's top management wasn't part of the censorship, nor were career officials.

NASA downplayed the report as old news on a problem that has since been fixed. NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said the space agency's new policies have been hailed for openness by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

The report found credence in allegations that National Public Radio was denied access to top global warming scientist James Hansen. It also found evidence that NASA headquarters press officials canceled a press conference on a mission monitoring ozone pollution and global warming because it was too close to the 2004 presidential election.

In addition, the report detailed more than a dozen other actions in which it said the NASA public affairs office unilaterally edited or downgraded press releases having to do with global warming or denied access to scientists.

NASA public affairs officials criticized by the report called it wrong, saying they were always open and truthful.

Not so, according to the report. The report did not directly accuse them of lying, but used more nuanced terms such as "mendacity" and "dissembling." The space agency complained those terms were unjust.

The report concluded that "inappropriate political posturing or advantage" was behind some of these actions.

NASA and the Bush administration instantly drew criticism as a result of the report.

"Our government's response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush administration's manipulation of that information violates the public trust," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-New Jersey.

Mark Bowen, who wrote a book on NASA and Hansen, faulted the report's finding that NASA administrator Michael Griffin and the White House weren't involved in manipulation.

"So many honest people inside NASA and out have demonstrated censorship has occurred," Bowen said.

In its response, NASA's legal office noted that the report showed that actual research on global warming was not interfered with, and that neither NASA senior management nor other senior administration officials were involved.

"The legitimate conclusions ... are those that NASA has already acknowledged and has long since fixed," deputy counsel Keith Sefton wrote in response.

NASA's former press secretary, Dean Acosta, who was accused of telling underlings that there were "too many" global warming news releases, denied manipulations.

"My entire career has been dedicated to open and honest communications," said Acosta, now a spokesman for aerospace giant Boeing Co. "The inspector general's assertions are patently false."

NASA's overall head of public affairs, David Mould, who was also criticized, said the report "got a number of things wrong... I didn't see things that were politically influenced." But Mould also pointed to changes in policy he made after the allegations first came out in 2006, saying "I'm proud of the improvements we made."

[kernel crash]

Thanks Al Gore

"The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC."

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

[Mr_Cheeze]

Be careful the way you refute global warming. You want to make sure you qualify it with "man made". You simply cannot deny that there is global warming. That would be the same as denying that there is pollution. The questions are whether the warming is natural and whether we can and should try to fix it. Neither argument is given merit when the mere existence of a phenomenon is denied.

[Slider]

Thanks Al Gore

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Man, it is a bunch of crap. Where is this list? Who's on it? What "refutation" did they offer? There is no list of 31K scientists that refute warming. Doesn't exist.

All propaganda, nothing more. You need to read a little more critically. Especially, as Cheeze points out, when the guy can't even distinguish between warming and CO2's role. If he can't grasp the most fundamental concepts that relate to the process, why would you even pay attention to whatever other drivel he offers?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Um, you be careful, too. I wasn't pointing out something so specific. Only the direction that global warming refutations should take. I'm not on your side, here. You talk about propaganda? Gores movie is rife with it.

I'm not denying that there is global warming. We've been over all of this. The denial is in how much of it is man made. The CO2 "evidence" to which you like to refer is circumstantial. It is no wonder that all of the alarmists went into hiding after the last three years of climate failed to produce any category 5 hurricanes off of the US.

It is one thing to stand for environmental correctness. It's another thing to use fear mongering to try and make people think that "man made" natural disaster disasters are imminent, and the world is going to end by 2080. It does the green side no good.

[kernel crash]

My position hasn't changed. I agreed that short term statistics could be used to show a warming trend. Although now we hear from many sources that that warming pattern has flattened out since 1998. I just never bought into the man made theory. And apparantly I'm not alone. So yes I could have been more clear about stating the difference. But its interesting that Slider summarizes the whole article as being a bunch of crap. Why? I guess I didn't list the names of the 31K skeptics mentioned in the article. Is it propaganda that the environmentalists have played a role in keeping us from developing more of our own oil supply? Is it propaganda that the prices of gas, oil and grain have skyrocketed as a result of these misguided environmentalists? Is it propaganda that the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere represents such a small percentage that it is regarded as a trace component? Is it propaganda that the UN IPCC is an agenda driven clatch of anti American shady individuals? Is it propaganda that many scientists around the world are starting to poke serious holes in the man made global warming theory? I guess until I present their names, date of birth, party affiliations, they just don't exist.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Is it propaganda that the prices of gas, oil and grain have skyrocketed as a result of these misguided environmentalists?

Well... yea, if you put it like that. The price of fuel has a lot more to do with the devalued dollar versus the euro than any actual supply or lack thereof.

[Slider]

And demand form China, and deregulation of futures trading, and political instability causd by the Iraq debacle, and lots more.

Reread the article you posted, kernel. He doesn't even cite a reference for that so-called list. It isn't journalism or science, but a weak attempt at mimicing both.

Slider

[MTBME]

That's a factor but not as much as the speculators driving the price of oil sky high. Otherwise the cost of a barrel of oil would drop by 40 to 60 dollars a barrel according to some industry analyst. In fact I heard an interview today by a commodities trader who said if Bush announced today that we would start drilling in Anwar, the price of oil would drop about 50 buck a barrel in a few months. Commodities traders are looking to the future trying to see where the price is going to be down the road. Anything that ultimately puts more oil in the pipeline works against that kind of speculating.

[kernel crash]

And demand form China, and deregulation of futures trading, and political instability causd by the Iraq debacle, and lots more.

Reread the article you posted, kernel. He doesn't even cite a reference for that so-called list. It isn't journalism or science, but a weak attempt at mimicing both.

Slider

I wish he had posted his source. Then I would have stuck it on your forehead on a sticky note ;) But seriously, most analyst feel that supply and demand from China etc. is not responsible for these prices which are way out of whack. The big money chased around obscene profit in the housing sector now they've moved on to oil. I hope the bottom drops out and they have to take a bath in it. And as far as Iraq, I don't think that plays that big of a role in todays prices. (Maybe 10 bucks) People are numb to it all by now. It doesn't swing the market like it did in the first few years.

[Slider]

There's a causal chain that needs identification here. Oil futures trading was deregulated 20 years ago - guess who. That let issues like Iraq play a role in oil prices, since all markets are subject to the herd instinct and can panic easily. Oil cost $25/barrel when we started the war and has climbed steadily, sometimes steeply, since.

I don't think you can say Iraq hasn't affected prices. Speculators are chasing profits, counting on Middle East unrest to protect them.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Speculators use any and every excuse to raise the price of a barrel. If it's not the war then it's hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, or the "driving season" in the US, or unrest in the Caucasias. I'm convinced that if we started drilling in ANWAR, the price would rise, simply out of fear for the impending bursting bubble.

The bubble is going to burst eventually, anyway. Simple economics. Just look at housing. The question is when.

[Slider]

Before deregulation, there was far less volatility because you needed lots of reserves and couldn't play on margin like you can now. Institutional investment in commodities is a completely different game compared to the herds of smaller investors that we see now. The point of the regulations that we gutted under Reagan was to avoid the massive inflation we're seeing.

Slider

[catbbq]

Speculators use any and every excuse to raise the price of a barrel. If it's not the war then it's hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, or the "driving season" in the US, or unrest in the Caucasias. I'm convinced that if we started drilling in ANWAR, the price would rise, simply out of fear for the impending bursting bubble.

The bubble is going to burst eventually, anyway. Simple economics. Just look at housing. The question is when.

Isn't it possible this bubble is different? I wonder because in the case of housing, people were buying into houses they couldn't afford on the hopes the bubble would keep expanding. In this case, people aren't buying up oil and holding it, it is getting used. While demand seems to have dropped a bit, it hasn't gone down much. If you look at Europe, they are used to paying these insanely high gas prices but that didn't keep everyone I knew there from driving into the office everyday through the city when they could have easily rode a bike, carpooled with someone in the office that also lived in the same building, or taking public trans.

No, I think oil is high to stay until something fundamental changes, and fundamental changes are rare.

[Slider]

Only some percentage of the housing bubble was due to speculation. Futures markets are, by their nature, 100% speculative, and little regulation that remains is a solid incentive for serious risk taking. The price can vary widely independent of supply or demand if enough people guess wrongly about either one. That is the reason that things like a war in the Middle East can have a big effect on the price of oil. There might or might not be real repercussions in the flow of oil, but the fear that there might be will cause concern and make investors more willing to gamble on an increase in price.

Oh yeah, got to add this. There is no way in the world that Bush missed the fact the the Iraq war would raise oil prices. That upside was to him, so far, worth 4,067 US lives and what what will be approaching $3trillion by the time we are done.

Slider