Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Election over, Bush's environmental assault resumes

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Election over, Bush's environmental assault resumes
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Election over, Bush's environmental assault resumes
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: Your third link

In reply to: Election over, Bush's environmental assault resumes

The AP should be chastised for journalistic malpractice.

In the opening line, they identify Rajendra K. Pachauri as "The world's chief climate scientist"

Hogwash! And perhaps part of the problem with the unwarranted air of scientific expertise heaped on Nobel Laureates whose laurels are not even remotely in the field of climate science.

Who is Rajendra K. Pachauri

Commencing his career with the Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, where he held several managerial positions, Dr Pachauri joined the North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics, and also served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 -- May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business.

On his return to India, he joined the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, as Member Senior Faculty (June 1975 -- June 1979) and went on to become Director, Consulting and Applied Research Division (July 1979 -- March 1981). He joined TERI as Director in April 1981.

He has also been a Visiting Professor, Resource Economics at the College of Mineral and Energy Resources, West Virginia University (August 1981 -- August 1982); Senior Visiting Fellow, Resource Systems Institute, East -- West Center, USA (May -- June 1982); and Visiting Research Fellow, The World Bank, Washington, DC (June -- September 1990). Recognising his vast knowledge and experience in the energy -- environment field, the United Nations Development Programme appointed him as a part time Adviser in the fields of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, 1994 -- 1999.

In other words, he's an economist and devote to the so-called "sustainable development" agenda of the UN. Hardly a scientist at all, let alone a climate scientest, let alone the world's chief climate scientist!

The closest qualification he has to science is his PhD in Industrial Engineering. Here is his thesis title: Pachauri, Rajendra Kumar, "A Dynamic Model for Forecasting of Electrical Energy Demand in a Specific Region in North and South Carolina," 1974, Co-Chairs: Bernard M. Olsen and Robert W. Llewellyn.

Shame on the AP, but not unusual. Sad

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Evie, the science says global warming is manmade

In reply to: Re: Your third link

The signs of it are evident to all but the ostriches (they're detailed in the article), everything that's happening agrees with the computer models (except it's happening a bit more slowly than predicted), and more than 95% of the world's climatologists are in agreement. If you routinely bet on less than 5% chances, you'll go bankrupt in no time -- but that's what Bush and co. are doing with the world's very future. Even Bush's hand-picked Presidential Commission came down on the side of man-made global warming by an overwhelming majority -- and oddly, that report is no longer available on any government web site.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
The real picture is less convincing

In reply to: Evie, the science says global warming is manmade


I think a lot of those people you mentioned are a little mixed up.
Collapse -
Other data, Dragon...

In reply to: The real picture is less convincing

Dragon, there are other data that support the simplest measurements, not the hand-waving arguments by a group trying to pooh-pooh global warming. The ocean temperatures are rising, resulting in more and stronger hurricanes and typhoones. And the glaciers and ice sheets are melting at an increasing rate. All these are well correlated with the surface measurments showing the 10 highest recorded mean surface temperatures being in the last 10 years, and not with the very indirect satellite measurements that rely on several assumptions of dubious value.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -

In reply to: Other data, Dragon...

And the glaciers and ice sheets are melting at an increasing rate

You were linked directly to several reputable sources (NASA amon them) that make note of the fact of INCREASING snow depth as a result of your questioning Evie when she mentioned it.

Claims such as yours based on debunked "information" that continue AFTER debunking are concious ignorance and not very demonstrative of any scientific thought processes.

If you don't intend to read the links don't ask for them.

Collapse -
An observation

In reply to: melting?

Increased snow depth can be consistent with global warming, because of increased precipitation.

Antarctica, as I'm sure you know, is the driest continent ... partly because it is so cold.

Well sea ice around Antarctica and it's glaciers are melting rather rapidly, which implies that the mean ocean and atmospheric temperatures are rising ... bear in mind that if the mean temperature had been, say, -1Celsius and is now 1Celsius, then now evaporation is a lot greater and so might precipition be.

As far as I recall, when I lived a colder climate and experienced snow, it generally only snowed (or hailed) when it was slightly above freezing ... more or less that.

In any case: increased snow depth AND actual ice melting can be easily reconciled I think.

Collapse -
There are assumptions and there are assumptions...

In reply to: Other data, Dragon...

Collapse -
On the offchance you are interested in ...

In reply to: Evie, the science says global warming is manmade

... the facts.

Even Bush's hand-picked Presidential Commission came down on the side of man-made global warming by an overwhelming majority

Read (actually re-read because I KNOW it was posted for your perusal around the time this mishyped report came out!) Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty {pdf file}

Incidentally Lindzen is a professor of Meteorology at MIT, a pretty renowned institution you have familiarity with Wink He was one of eleven of the scientists that worked on the report, and this was his response to the misreporting done on the summary of the report.

-- and oddly, that report is no longer available on any government web site.

And oddly this isn't the first time that you have cast aspersions of conspiracy about this Administration. You seem to "see" things written that mysteriously disappear. Perhaps you imagined reading something and can't find it when you return to re-read? Certainly squares better with your faulty memory about the circumstances of Thomas' confirmation vote, or more recently your recollection of the makeup of the Civil Rights Commission that issued the Florida 2000 report. But I digress ...

Don't assume that because you can't find something that it is no longer there. If Lindzen's article is not enough to disabuse you of the misconceptions of the conclusions of that study, you can download and read the entire report here:
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council
{National Academies Press is the official publishing outfit of the National Academies, and when putting in the title of the article the first link went to The NAS site itself.}

more than 95% of the world's climatologists are in agreement

There is no official concensus that can even begin to back up this claim.

everything that's happening agrees with the computer models

Again not true. Some things seem to agree, others don't, and you seem to be the ostrich here when it comes to ignoring the FACT that most of these models have not been revised so that they would predict what we already know to have occurred in 2000 based on data through 1990. Also if all the modelS (plural) predict the same thing, then why is there not one model (singular)?? There's something strange about the notion that several complex models arrive at the same conclusion -- I have personal experience modelling kinetic processes and am well aware of how one can get excellent fits to data with models that differ dramatically from each other, and even have no correlation to physical or chemical mechanisms.

Still, IF global warming on the Chicken Little scale is such a great danger to the ENTIRE planet, and Kyoto is the magical pill to solve it all, why are China, India and Brazil exempt?

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Thanks for finding the report

In reply to: On the offchance you are interested in ...

It was once at least linked to from NOAA and the White house -- those links are now gone. The opening paragraph of the report says:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth ?s atmosphere as a result of human activities,causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are,in fact,rising.The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities,but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century."

BTW, I'm not arguing that the Kyoto treat is necessarily the answer -- but we have to do SOMETHING, and the Bush Administration is doing NOTHING. Actually, that's not true -- one of their very first actions on taking office was to kill mandates for increased fuel efficiency that were already in place, exacerbating both global warming and our energy dependence on foreign oil.

Lindzen was the more vocal of two of the scientists who dissented from the majority report. As for how that fits with my 95% figure, the panel was specifically selected from the minority of meteorologists who by early 2001 had not already decided in favor of human-induced global warming. The Bushies hoped to get a majority report pooh-poohing the concept, but that's not what happened...

As for the consensus, it's more like 100% now:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.
>>The drafting of such reports and statements [from the IPCC, NAS, and other such groups] involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. <<

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Solar cycles are manmade?

In reply to: Evie, the science says global warming is manmade

Or do you claim that solar cycles contribute nothing the the ever changing climate on Earth?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) By solar cycles we should be cooler, not warmer, Clay.

In reply to: Solar cycles are manmade?

Collapse -
Not so from the info at Clay's link

In reply to: (NT) By solar cycles we should be cooler, not warmer, Clay.

Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

now look at the Sunspot numbers info and you will see that we are in an ascending portion of this 11 year cycle.

Collapse -
Say what?

In reply to: Evie, the science says global warming is manmade

All the "signs" and geological records "say" that global warming and cooling are CYCLIC and that there are various causes.

Some few signs indicate that in recent years humans may have had more of an effect in some areas while natural actions have had the same or less effect.

Again you are pulling figures from some dark place so your reluctance to link to any credible sources for the figures is understood (www.pullitfromyourass.org isn't a reputable source so please try to avoid it in the future).

Collapse -
Here's what...

In reply to: Say what?

Yes, Ed, there's a climatic cycle. But that cycle says things should be getting COOLER now, not warmer. Read my
reply to Evie for the argument or links to the argument -- and a link to the recent Science essay on the paper stating that there's now virtually complete consensus on human-induced global warming. Of course, this is all based on scientific data and opinion by experts in the field, whereas the right always distrusts experts...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Yes I read your reply to Evie and...

In reply to: Here's what...

I wonder if you actually read what you linked to Dave.

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

On the face that looks at first glance to be something of import (as you apparently read it) but not when it and the rest of the presentation is digested.

A careful reading will garner the information that no one denies that humans have had some effect nor do they deny that other natural causes in the past warming/cooling periods are also having more or less effect. A careful reading will not find anyone assigning blame only to man's activities, simply speculating on their import and this was ONLY for a concensus of IPCC which is not representative of all Meteorological Organizations, but of a select percentage of them and interestingly ALL reports used to demonstrate a concensus were IPCC reports only--all others were disregarded as well as any in the database that didn't seem to suit their criteria as evidenced by note 9.

That same careful reading will inform the reader that "likely" and "most...likely" are not definitive by any means but leave a lot of wiggle room necessitated by enormous leaps not based on sound science because the concentration on Anthropogenic Climate Change to almost a total exclusion of natural forcings such as orbital and solar cycles (or solar radiation in relation to those cycles) or other internal variabilities. Left out too is the simple but well established fact that the sun itself is getting hotter.

The "Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bj

Collapse -
I agree, Evie

In reply to: Re: Your third link

It gets tiresome hearing about all the leading experts on this and that.

But the guy doesn't have to be the top scientist in anything to be credible. He is reporting what a large number of scientists have concluded.

"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Indian scientist oversees the work of hundreds of specialists who regularly assess the latest research on climate change.

In its last major report, in 2001, the panel projected that global temperatures in the 21st century would increase by 3 to 10 degrees, depending on many factors, including how quickly and deeply gas emissions were cut back." (sorry, I didn't make a note of where I got this.)

Collapse -
The problem is ...

In reply to: I agree, Evie

... that laypeople give more credence to those identified by the press as being experts, or chief experts.

This man qualifies as neither, and the UN Climate Group is so politicized it is astounding ANY actual science makes it out of there.

Collapse -
Oops, Evie, you forgot to read the post you were replying to

In reply to: The problem is ...

The man was reporting what a large number of scientists concluded. You are not going to get the information from the horse's mouth; it's going to come via a spokesman, a newspaper, some third party,etc. That is, unless you a a personal friend and can pick up the phone and call him. grandpaw

Collapse -
I have no clue of your background ...

In reply to: Oops, Evie, you forgot to read the post you were replying to

... but I am a scientist and have done extensive reading on the issue. The jury is still out to anyone that is intellectually honest on this matter.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't conserve, etc., etc. It does mean that Kyoto is an UTTER FARCE!

Collapse -
Mass condmenation of those who disagree, by Evie

In reply to: I have no clue of your background ...

Boy, Evie, you have judged a very large number of scientists and others to be, not just wrong, but intellectually dishonest. That must be quite a feat, getting into the minds of so meny people at once. You must not only be a scientist, you must be perhaps the outstanding scientist in this field, as well as somewhat psychic, to be qualified to condemn so many people who are generally thought to be reputable. By the way, do you think that everyone who disagrees with you is intellectually dishonest?

So you are a scientist. That's a very wide field. A person could be a very excellent scientist and not at all be qualified to judge the global warming issue. Don't you agree?

So you've read extensively about global warming. What reading have you done, if any, that agrees with your mass condemnation? Isn't the answer to that none at all? Even Lindzen doesn't consider all the scientists who disagree with him to be intellectually dishonest, nor does he think that the Kyoto Treaty is, as you say, AN UTTER FARCE. You can't cite a single source that backs up your condemning all the scientists who disagree with you as being intellectually dishonest; nor can you cite a single source that backs up your claim that the Kyoto Treaty is an utter farce. So much for your extensive reading. Isn't it true that those statements by you are simply the products of an overactive imagination? Or perhaps overactive zeal? Or perhaps even a lack of good judgment, not by them, but by you?


Collapse -
You would be surprised ...

In reply to: Mass condmenation of those who disagree, by Evie

... at how many scientists there are that DON'T belong to the fictitous concensus of man-made global warming. It is largely bureaucrats or those with an agenda that misrepresent the bulk of the science out there.

Dragon has posted a few links, I have posted many more over the years here. I won't waste time repeating those for someone that seems to feel his purpose here is to dog certain members.

My education and expertise is very pertinent to being able to digest and judge climate models. I read the actual papers put forth by the scientists, not the executive summaries of various bodies that are then bastardized by a biased press. What you need to do at a minimum is generally look at the last few sentences of articles re: global warming. There you might find the disclaimers to the headline -- as in, that the study is not conclusive, etc.

Climate models routinely exclude water vapor and cloud cover from their parameters. In doing so it is amazing they can even come close with any modeling, but when their models fail to predict what we KNOW to have occurred, they cannot make the fix.

I am not condemning the scientists en masse, but scientists are human too, and there is an inherent bias in any scientist to prove one's hypothesis. This is especially true for those that rely on continued government funding find themselves gearing their research towards that which brings in more funds. If they disprove what they have essentially been hired to prove, do you think they get funded again? Folks seem to be able to view critically the studies done by scientists at the behest of private or corporate entities. They should view equally critically the studies done by scientists working for the government, or at the behest of government.

Collapse -
So, you'll get your info from newspapers instead? Or,

In reply to: Mass condmenation of those who disagree, by Evie

perhaps the UN's spokesman? And, you think your getting the actual views of scientists?

Collapse -
Is this to me, Kiddpeat?

In reply to: So, you'll get your info from newspapers instead? Or,

And,if so, what it the world are you trying to say, unsuccessfully? I haven't mentioned newspapers or UN spokesmen, so maybe you have me mixed up with someone who looks like me, poor soul. grandpaw

Collapse -
p.s. re: your last comment ...

In reply to: I agree, Evie

... take heart, those projections have an infinitessimal chance of actually coming true as they rely on the most drastic of every parameter of the worst model occurring simultaneously. A virtual impossibility.

Collapse -
What were you really expecting?

In reply to: Election over, Bush's environmental assault resumes

As a bonus, just think of the good bush's EPA guy is going to do at HHS. If Mike Leavitt enjoyed what he had to do to the environment he should be giggling all day when he has to do the same to the impoverished children.


Collapse -
Arctic Ocean Was Balmy 70 Mln Years Ago -Study

In reply to: Election over, Bush's environmental assault resumes

I thought this was interesting.

Collapse -
Bits and pieces

In reply to: Election over, Bush's environmental assault resumes

Two hundred nations have signed up for the Kyoto Treaty. The US also signed up but President Bush withdrew our membership.

"Pachauri said he was heartened by the actions of individual US states, particularly in the Northeast, to impose carbon-dioxide reductions on power plants, for example. ''I think the next round of action will only come from an acceptance of the science," he said."

"To stop further damage to the climate we need a worldwide 60% reduction in emissions by 2050," declared British Prime Minister Tony Blair in February 2003

"Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0

Collapse -
Global warming

In reply to: Election over, Bush's environmental assault resumes

I must admit that I wonder myself if global warming is just part of the normal cycle of still coming out of an "ice age", but why gamble on such a possibility?

Even if it turns out that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions doesn't halt global warming - something none of us here will ever know - a lot else will have been achieved by using better technologies, reducing resource depletion and generally cleaning things up.

I don't know what your actual qualifications are Evie, but you cannot possibly know that scientists and others who think differently to you are wrong ... to know that you would have to time-travel to 2100 perhaps.

Meanwhile: what problem do you have with cleaning things up in any case and just in case human activity is bringing on something which isn't part of a natural cycle.

Your attitude is hardly a scientific one, e.g. you are far too certain about a lot of things.

Collapse -
There are scarce few ...

In reply to: Global warming

... scientists that will from their own mouths, state definitively that global warming is CAUSED by man-made CO2 emissions. For starters, there is not a single study that can correlate CO2 levels with global temperature over a sufficiently long time frame, let alone establish a causal effect. If there is such a concensus, surely there would be such studies in existence.

Treaties are drafted by politicians not scientists. Any scientist that believes in global warming theory could not possibly support Kyoto, because such warming would not discriminate between CO2 produced by the US vs. that produced by China. The goal of the Kyoto proponents is income redistribution by crippling First World economies and allowing developing economies to grow unabated. If you think outsourcing is a problem now, wait until Kyoto, God forbid!, ever got enacted and enforced. Think logically, if Austrailia (after livestock flatulence is taxed) exceeds it's CO2 quota, where do you think Austrailian companies are going to set up shop? And if you think this will clean things up, take a look at the environmental standards of these countries. The planet is far better off if manufacturing is done in First World countries that regulate things.

I have no problem with cleaning things up and live my life by very conservative principles in terms of my personal use of resources.

As to the rest, you are entitled to your opinion.

Collapse -

In reply to: There are scarce few ...

I wrote this in reply to you on a now-locked thread.

"How and why I used "bible quotations:'"
Your thread on Anti religious bigotry must have got out of hand; it's locked. Can't turn my back on you guys for two days ... Happy Anyway, I had prepared this reply for you:

Evie, here's your last post to me:
"I try to stay out of direct discussions re: issues of faith. That was not the premise of my post.
"Personally, I don't care what others believe or don't believe. But those that don't believe don't have some special dispensation to hate or denigrate those that do."

I first dealt with your second comment. I've been trained to look at a situation and indentify, if possible, the major religious idea or principle involved. That done, my study bible and other materials will lead me - without fail - to one or more passages in God's word itself that help me deal with the situation.

In this case, you subscribe to a commonly-held idea: If Jesus is such a wonderful person - some even worship him as God - then how could any mere human ignore or even denigrate his teachings? As humans we're frustrated and angered by this. It turns out the bible was ahead of us on this [Surprised? :-)] and shows us first that we have the wrong approach:

Pr 1:22- "How long will you inexperienced ones keep loving inexperience, and how long must you ridiculers desire for yourselves outright ridicule, and how long will you stupid ones keep hating knowledge?" The writer Solomon seems here to be speaking of those who hate just his own knowledge, yet an earlier verse gives us the 'big picture:' v.7- "The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge. Wisdom and discipline are what mere fools have despised."

And remember where Solomon got his wisdom: "'And you must give to [me] an obedient heart to judge your people, to discern between good and bad; for who is able to judge this difficult people of yours?' And the thing was pleasing in the eyes of Jehovah, because Sol?o

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Enter to win* a free holiday tech gift!

CNET's giving five lucky winners the gift of their choice valued up to $250!