digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bush Official Blocked Scientist From Discussing Glbl Warming/Hurricane Link

thinkprogress.org — Emails released today by Rep. Waxman show that, one month after Hurricane Katrina, Bush officials blocked a NOAA scientist from discussing the links between global warming and hurricanes on TV. ThinkProgress has the emails.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -12/+38I thought Democrats don't have any ideas, and no agenda. I thought Democrats were simply Bush obstructionists that don't want to do anything but hate Bush all the time. Here we have a story on yet another idea for tackling a major issue, and it'll fly right in the face of standard conservative talking points about Democrats and progressives having no core values.

    Naturally, the Hannitys and the Limbaughs of the world will completely disregard this, because their talking points are more important than reality.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -27/+12Knutson is a government employee floating a wild hypothesis with absolutely NO PROOF.

      If I were Bush, I wouldn't allow him to blabber publicly like The Evil Algor.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -24/+13Listen DAMN IT for the one thousandth time, Katrina and the recent history of hurricanes is cyclical. It has been cyclical for hundreds of years, and it is still cyclical. Global warming be damned, the activity rises and falls.

      I live in Hurricane Alley, back when the last cycle slowed down everybody sighed a bit of relief, only to come in to the next big cycle recently.

      If Bush kept a bung hole from floating ideas that the moon is made of green cheese, then I think we'd maybe think it was a good thing.

      We in Hurricane Alley are tired of hearing those from outside hurricane alley tell us that our current cycle (which came as expected) now due to global warming.

      Global warming is a significant issue and must be taken seriously. But when you lump in every damn thing that "may be" scary to try to get your point made you belittle the issue itself. Too many people know that hurricane activity is cyclical, so many that its foolish to try and co-opt good science to make a point about global warming.

      The global warming movement has become alarmist. Any science is being called "good science" so long as it backs up the human causes global warming point.
      Its shameful and its bad science.
    • Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@cliffzdude

      I agree with you fundamentaly, however, i do believe in putting all evidence forward in a public forum for debate and examination. I think this is a bad idea coming from Mr. Bush blocking these things considering how big a vested interested him, his family, and his friends all have in Big Oil, which is being linked to the global warming phenominone. Bush is trying to block any bad press with regards to big oil because of his vested interest, and i don't think it includes just global warming.Global warming is just such a big issue that it's the one getting the attention.
    • rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11"Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.. Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame... 'I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations...'"
      http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894

      I think that it is reasonable to assume that the "jury" is still out...
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2"MY god you Neo Cons
      How many more hurricanes do we have to have wipe out our coastal cities.
      Global warming has caused so many hurricanes this year that the Mid Atlantic states may never recover, how many more cities must we ..............Oh wait never mind,
      any body update my script in the last 6 Months hello, Throw me a fricken bone, I am Powerful Democrat in the Congress, Jeezus, why is it that any body with any competence ends up working for the Goddamned republicans.
    • BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2@Duffy40

      So, you're a climatologist? Well Dr. Duffy, most of your colleagues would disagree with your global warming/hurricane impact assessment.
    • drog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5cliffzdude,
      I know hurricanes are cyclical, and it is next to impossible to link a particular event like a hurricane to a global phenomenon. However hurricanes are powered by warm ocean waters, so obviously warmer oceans could create stronger hurricanes. I don't think this guy should be silenced for coming to that conclusion.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5N@ BullyJack
      No i am a smart ass
      we are related, cause your a dumb ass
      any questions?
      And no most Climatologist will tell you we are coming out of Maunder Minimum,(AKA The little Ice Age) and are heading into a warming period. Just as most Astronomers will tell You Mars and Jupiter are. Goddamn, we are not just causing Global Warming, We are causing Solar Warming
      (As for my real profession, the last 2 words are what we, in my profession would call, a clue!)
      Have a nice day
    • XxXoldsaltXxX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@Duffy40

      I have no idea what you just said, so i think i'll disagree and downvote you.
    • Loki2896, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@cliffzdude

      I am instantly struck by the hypocrisy of this action.
      The conservative government spent enormous effort trying to justify publicly airing intelligent design debate whiling using the same influence to silence debate over global warming.
      The government really has no right to interfere either for or against scientific theories, particularly when they do so only for their own political gain.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2got to love bill greys conviction
      "But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.

      “Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”"
    • Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What I don't get about conservatives like BullyJack is this:
      Say Global warming isn't caused by humans.... We know for a fact that pollution is caused by humans, and we know that pollution causes tons of health problems which cost the government and citizens and companies a significant amount of money. Whether you believe in global warming or not, pollution is PROVEN to be bad. Why not take initiative to reduce pollutants, regardless of whether global warming is real or not.
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -42/+9Will you people on the left stop the fear mongering!

    Bush is taking too much power...
    Bush isn't doing enough to protect us...
    Bush causes terrorism...
    Bush causes Global warming...
    Bush Bombed the levies in New Orleans

    It gets old... and people tune you out.
    • borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24I agree with the first three. The last two are just ridiculous.
      And last time i checked Bush is the fear mongerer.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Actually no, there are plenty of articles creating the fear in people who don't know any better.

      Remember all those articles stating the NSA is listening to your phone conversations? And they're "wiretapping" everyone's phone? And the NSA is ignoring the 4th amendment?

      According to the USAToday and the WashingtonPost none of those are true. The NSA is collecting phone data. They have a database of all international calls made to suspected terrorists. Only about 10 cases have roused enough suspicion to gather their domestic phone records, and this still requires a warrant and has been obtained every time. Last time I check, SMITH vs MARYLAND (1979) allowed law enforcement to gather phone records without a warrant.

      Like or not it doesn't matter. But to sensatinalize and fear monger about how our rights are being taken away is absolute nonsense. It just goes to show that the right and left are willing to stoop to new lows.
  • sgreger1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16The day the truth gets old in america is a sad day GREYMAXCAT. Fearmongering is what Bush has been about since day one, I agree the far left can be pussys at times however regarding this issue, the fact that the president would block reports from top scientists regarding the condition of our planet is astounding and anyone who tunes out opposers to such an event are only tuning you out because if ignorance.
    • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Last time a presidential aide blocked a government climatologist for promoting global warming positions at odds with the administration...the aide was fired.

      So who knows what will happen this time around.

      "the fact that the president would block reports"

      I'm fairly certain Bush hasn't even heard of this scientist or these emails yet. Bush isn't omnipotent. I mean, this is the idiotic monkey-looking Bush here. Unless he's an all-knowing monkey god... wait... a.... minute... That explains everything!
    • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8When Bush says that Islamic nut jobs are trying to kill innocent people it is decried as fear mongering and it must be stopped...

      When Algore says we are all going to die because the planets temp may raise a degree or two, Gore is heralded as a savior...

      The double standard is pathetic...
    • foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13There is no double standard because there is no comparison.

      Gore gets his facts from scientists. His solution to the problem of climate change is investing in alternative energy such as wind and solar, and stopping the billion dollar tax breaks to oil and coal corporations.

      Bush gets his facts from... who knows? Maybe anti-Islam evangelicals? His solution to terrorism is to spend billions to invade countries which have no links to previous terrorist attacks, and to run up the deficit on unnecessary military operations.

      How can you compare them?
    • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1*****...Its all *****...
    • iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Woah greymaxcat, nice rebuttal.
  • ig33k010011, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4you dont know what the report was about. it could of been more then just a global warming thing. before anyone makes any judgment, we should see actual reports first.
    • 3adkied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"we should see actual reports first."
      Bingo. That's why we have a problem when they block the scientists from discussing it.
  • karlkarl, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7Global warming is fake
  • blankman, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4this can't be accurate. The president doesn't have the power to control freedom of speech. Besides, how would he just hear about a scientist that's going to talk about that on a tv show? If this is true, we had all better start thinking about moving to china, because in the end, they might have more freedom than we do.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"The president doesn't have the power to control freedom of speech."

      Welcome to America...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
    • mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love how there hasn't been a SINGLE rebuttle or even a "Stupid leftist lefty!" for the Free Speech Zone link. You know why? Cause its true!
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Free speech does not cover destruction of private property or firebombing police, and for those of you who think that it does, go to your free speech zone.
    • mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not every protester is going to fire bomb police and destroy property. Just punish the ones that do not all of them this is clearly complete disregard for our 1st amendment rights.
  • durazine, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
  • CamZak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Great...so the President is allowed to generate hyped up speeches about the war on terror. But if someone wants to discuss the possibility of gloabal warming causes hurricanes then it's a no-no? Bah.
  • Nyghtewynd, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Nothing but a screed from a left-wing propaganda site. No digg.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But its fact. Its gotta be! It doesn't matter that ThinkProgress is ultra liberal and are willing to stretch the truth a little bit, they're just life Fox News, right!?
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"NOAA responded to Mr. Fuqua that Dr. Knutson projected a “very small increase in hurricane intensity” due to increased greenhouse gas pollution. Mr. Fuqua responded, “why can’t we have one of the other guys then?”"

    Numerical computer models are not scientific proof.
  • sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I never knew gerbil warming existed, nevermind whatever they have to do with hurricanes.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Don't know, any body got Richard Geeres Phone number, maybe he knows.
    • piznut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is perfectly legal for them do do this, afaik. Is it ethical? Probably not. But when did ethics ever have anything to do with politics? I'm not trying to draw any party distinctions here. I think politicians are mostly dishonest and I realize that the PACs that control the democratic party better represent my interests as an atheist, middle-class man than the PAC and corporate interests that control the republican party. If I were rich and / or fundamentalist christian, I expect that my typical voting habits would change. It's like corporate fascism, but nobody wants to actually acknowledge it. I don't like the system, but honestly there are more important things for me to worry about...things that more directly affect my life.

      Politics are rarely about actually honest debate. While I would say that the situation has become noticeably worse in my lifetime it's all just the status quo, imo.
  • mykos, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1The same left-wingers have been against big corporations (the ones not controlled by the government anyway) since long before theories of global warming.

    Global warming is just something totalitarian big-government types have latched on to, since it's a way to get the government to step in and regulate big corporations and common citizens driving cars.

    It's getting hotter on Mars, too, and the polar caps are receding. Where are their SUVs? Where are their combustion engines? Where are their big corporations? Could it be that the sun, many thousands of times the size of earth and millions of years old, might actually have cycles of heating and cooling? Look it up.
  • LukeyMI, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I love how propaganda sites like this pump up stories into something they aren't. BOTH sides do this all the time. Did anybody actually read the email messages? How can any SANE person conclude that there's a conspiracy behind this? Come on!

    The Internet is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong, but there are far too many people who read into blogs as as gospel truth. Major news media gets alot of flack about their news being untrustworthy, but you usually don't see those people question the nutjobs that create sites like this one. Anybody who reads websites like this (liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, etc - and the sites those groups create) and believes every word of it seriously needs to get their head examined. How about waiting for some facts before throwing accusations around for a change? Quit being mindless sheep!
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yeah, that freaking first ammendment, excluding groups from its protection, it is not just for ant-choice demonstrations anymore.
  • Conundrum28, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Lukey, I concur. People read too much into politics to realize that by standing by one party or another, or one narrow frame of mind over another narrow frame of mind (for those unaware, neither party tackles what every individual American wants, and instead, tell you what you want, and then tell you they've told you what you want to hear), that they're crippling what makes our country a true democracy. Number one problem in America right now is that we've got a two party system who're grappling for power while an interest in the world, culture, politics, and freedom takes a decline. I don't think people understand that both sides aren't all that drastically different, and that one or the other is going to make that big of a difference.

    In relevance to the subject at hand - this is really a misconstrued read, implying things based on very moderately suggestive information.
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think Conundrum28 is a remarkable human being, and I would like to see this person post on more threads. It's so refreshing to read a balanced, reasonable comment!

      Thank you, Conundrum28.
  • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I want to wait and see the results. The letter from Waxman to Gutierrez at the DOC asks for a response to be given by Oct. 9, 2006. (http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060919105731-66383.pdf ) This whole story seems a little sketchy to me, and I'd really like to see it with more meat before deciding it's very important or if it doesn't really have substance.

    And to the "If it's Left, it gets left" crowd, it looks like the representative is doing the job he is paid to be doing. His constituents probably brought this matter to his attention and requested (or demanded, whichever) that the matter be investigated. I would expect the same from any elected official, regardless of his/her cult-party affiliation.
  • Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1science is more important than politics.

    points off on politics for coming between man and God
  • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5In the interest of trying to bridge the "gap" between the "two parties" that the media has convinced must always oppose each other:

    Global warming does exist. The earth is getting hotter. The evidence *suggests* that the current warming of the planet is unnatural due to it's accelerated rate of temperature increase. However, this is not gospel... as with any scientific theory, you can never prove your theory 100% right. No one knows for sure if human negligence is really the cause. While it is a good explanation, it isn't the only one. Therefore, people who say global warming is natural and unpreventable, so we don't have to do anything about it, have a legitimate claim. They err when they say that global warming is just cyclical because they omit the fact that this current cycle is accelerated, but I digress.

    The point is, educate yourself about global warming before you discuss on either side. The amount of misinformation out there is staggering. Furthermore, don't reduce the argument to "fearmonger/alarmist vs. uneducated deniers". Seriously, it does nothing but further bolster the media claims of a polarized nation.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I have been educating myself
      Its been warmer this century (1930)
      Its been Warmer in the last 1000 years.
      Its getting warmer on Mars
      Its getting warmer on Jupiter.
      But still the cry and hue echoes, we must cut green house gasses.
      As Long as the windfarm does not spoil Ted Kennedy or Ed Asners View.
      As Long as the solar farm does not destroy the Mojave brown hopping rat,
      and Never even think about Nuclear power
      Because that is what it is all about, power
      Power over those you consider inferior to you
      Not energy, Power.
      Because when these people say we must sacrifice, their definition of we does not include the elite that "we" need to have to tell us how to live. No they are not the ones who need to go back to sustenance farming living in hovels heated by cow dung and a 50% child mortality rate. That is for you and me, you know the unwashed masses.
      Don't believe me, look at the big supporters of Public Eduction, who oppose school choice. None of them, not the Left wing Politicians, Not the Members of NEA, consider Public Schools good enough for their kids. But oh heaven help you want to try and fix them.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is it a legitimate claim though? For this claim to be legitimate, it needs to be able to explain if it is a legitimate course of action to keep our current methods of energy production (in terms of environmental impact): have you seen any studies that say this? Conversely, of all of the variables that are under our control as citizens of this planet, is it not the behavior of humans the main controllable variable? If we remove our impact in this ecological equation: what will we have lost? Belching smokestacks, smoke spewing trucks, more rain forests to explore? That doesn't sound like a big loss to me.

      And would we lose jobs if we go towards energy efficiency? NO! Who is going to make those green products? Service them? Invent them? Look at the hybrid car market: it seems green is profitable (as a side note: look who broke the market as opposed to who didn't....and which country could have retained auto manufacturing jobs and who didn't.....hmmmm)

      What do we have to gain by keeping our current energy producing methods? A slightly hazy sky? Less forests to play in? More illnesses caused by airborne carcinogens?

      But to directly address your post: if we took our variable out of the equation, wouldn't we still be a better society, a healthier society better suited to adapt to climate changes if global warming wasn't actually caused by human activity?
  • Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Bush was doing the global warming scaremongers a favor.

    Global warming has no link to hurricanes.

    Or does this year's sharp decline in the number of hurricanes indicate that global warming is over?
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Oh no. That just means that Bush is causing global cooling. I wish I had the God-like power to control the weather like he does.

      I'd put a glacier on San Francisco.
    • DocLee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The science doesn't say anything about frequencies of hurricanes being effected. A decline in hurricanes is quite a common talking point of anti-global warming crowd but it does nothing more than attempt to skew the point. The theory of frequency increases has already been shot down. The point is that global warming has the potential to increase the intensity of hurricanes. Frequency != intensity. From what scientists understand of intensities of hurricanes, shifts in water temperatures toward warmer waters would most likely cause an increase in intensity of hurricanes.

      If you're going to discuss the science, at least try to keep up with the topic and discuss what's actually being said.
    • Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, I've heard that hair-splitting. "It's the intensity of the storms, not the number of intense storms." As if those two things are completely unrelated.

      This year's hurricanes have also been less intense than last year's.
    • Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Kohath
      Sharp decline in hurricanes? We're up to hurricane Helene in the Atlantic so far. That means we've had 8 hurricanes and the season is just getting warmed up. There are 2 hurricanes active right now.

      Just because they haven't been making landfall people seem to think it's an easy hurricane season. Consider for a moment that hurricane Gordon is lining up to slap northern Spain right now. When was the last time Spain was hit by a hurricane?!?! Granted it will probably devolve into a tropical storm by the time it hits them, but it's still not a good sign.

      Also throughout a large part of the hurricane season this year, there have been continuous storms along the equator. Simple luck of wind currents has been pushing the storms into a solid stream of intense bad weather, rather than forming strong fronts needed for hurricanes.

      As our glaciers and ice caps melt it's only going to get worse. The fresh water slows down the oceanic heat pumps. One way or another the heat at the equator will push towards the poles. If the waters not moving, then the air will.
  • madampince, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I CANNOT believe that two men as evil as Bush and Cheney are running this country. All the religious folks thought Clinton was evil because he got a blowjob in the Oval Office, but even though I'm not a fan of his, I don't think he set out to destroy the world. Bush & his henchmen would be more than happy to do so, all to preserve the almighty dollar for the moment -- who cares about the future? They won't be around to see the havoc they'll have wrought.
    • JoeB4ever, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Way to go off topic and state something that is unrelated to the story just to talk ***** about Bush.

      Does the baby want his bottle?

      I find it funny when people call Bush an idiot, then turn around and say he's able to develop all of these conspiracies.

      One or the other people.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Clinton was evil for lying under oath, allegedly raping or attempting to rape at least 2 woman, and for doing Jack ***** about Global terrorism in spite of 4 attacks while president.
      And when I read things like what you just wrote, I miss the good old days of only hearing about alien anal probes, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster
  • twoleftfeet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Everybody should see "An Inconvenient Truth" - the evidence for human caused global warming is very strong and supported by every single scientific paper in peer reviewed journals that studied the question.
    • Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Is it better than "Weekend at Bernie's 2" ? Because that one really makes you think.
    • isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton then you'll never worry about Global Warming again.
  • vbbx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I watched Maher on the TV tonight trying to explain why CBS banned him from ridiculing religion on the CBS news' free speech session. I guess there is at least one left leaning outfit that knows the difference between kooks and comedians and the truth. Not many, but at least one.

    Maybe you haven't read, the latest prediction is a global ice age in the near future, like the Maunder minimum. I wonder what alGore has to say about that?

    Yeah, I remember the 70s, we were all going to die because of the coming ice age, caused no less by humans.
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

      Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

      Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

      Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

      Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

      But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

      The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

      Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

      Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

      Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

      Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

      Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

      Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

      In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.


      This page is from: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
  • moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what happened to acid rain?
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I love how (as usual) some of you 29 percentin' Bush Apologists (who seem to still be asleep) revert each and every time to your idiotic standard but but but but tactics.

    but but Gore....but but the hurricanes this year... but but baaaaa!


    Can you ever stay ON the topic at hand and discuss IT, instead of "shifting'?

    Lazy asses with NO amount of accountability. The THREAD is called "Bush Official Blocked Scientist From Discussing Glbl Warming/Hurricane Link".
    His last "environmental" official changed reports, was caught on it and forced to resign, and then went on to work for Mobile Oil.
    The Bush admin has PAID reporters to give it's "views" on different matters.

    Wake the hell up to what Fascism means....and what this admin is doing.


    ------->"Bush Official Blocked Scientist From Discussing Glbl Warming/Hurricane Link"
    Awake now? Need more coffee this AM? Well?

    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Since you don't seem to grasp the reasons for the posts from people you call "Bush Apologists", I'll explain it to you in small words that you can understand. The point was, there may be a VERY GOOD REASON that this person was blocked from discussing a point that has no concrete evidence to back it up. Also, the article in question isn't exactly from a non-biased source. I know what fascism means. It's a a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
      Good thing our presidents are elected and no one gets shot for voicing opposition, isn't it.
  • LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeh, I'm glad we put on our tinfoil hats for what was supposed to be the worst hurricane season in recorded history. 6 named storms later, I think the only damage in this country was a few flapping shingles.
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Since you don't seem to grasp the reasons for the posts from people you call "Bush Apologists", I'll explain it to you in small words that you can understand. The point was, there may be a VERY GOOD REASON that this person was blocked from discussing a point that has no concrete evidence to back it up. Also, the article in question isn't exactly from a non-biased source."
    (4wheels)



    I grasp the "reasons" for the post quite well in fact, thank you. Let me "use small words" for you if I may?

    The THREAD, is NOT about Clinton....or hurricaines...or conspiracies....or EVEN global warming in fact. the THREAD is about ANOTHER official possibly trying to 'change' reality to further a view of a govt's stance and an administration's "policies". Clear yet?

    A tactic used by "bush apologists", is to shift the thread to "Gore", or "Clinton", or "tinfoil hats" etc. Get it yet? Look through THIS thread as well...See it all there? Get it yet? Small enough words for you?

    Also, alex....You stated that "the article in question isn't exactly from a non-biased source." Well, neither is an "opinion" based on YOUR profile.

    Case in point from YOUR favorite digs Alex (4Wheels)?
    ----Droning toward sensitivity
    Say what you like about the left-wing kooks, but they can still get a good hate on.

    ------Constitution Day? What a joke.
    submitted by 4wheel 7 days ago (via http://www.humanevents.com/art…)
    The left, along with ignorant Americans who believe the government is there to take care of them, howls about our "rights" being violated


    -----Republicans Gain In Midterm Polls

    -----Clinton aides had hand in Dubai deal







    Now, what were YOU saying about Biasedness again 4wheels?
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was and am saying exactly what I meant. People were/are free to comment about anything I've posted. I'm not telling them they're changing the subject. You are. By the way, read my last reply again, then read your last reply. You totally missed the point. I'm hoping you missed it on purpose.
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"I was and am saying exactly what I meant. People were/are free to comment about anything I've posted. I'm not telling them they're changing the subject. You are. By the way, read my last reply again, then read your last reply. You totally missed the point. I'm hoping you missed it on purpose."
    --(4wheels)







    Of course people are free to comment...MY point, was that the topic was..(here it comes again....) being SHIFTED....I never stated that YOU said they were changing the subject as you implied above, I certainly know that *I* stated such.

    I read your last reply, and I gathered your point quite well in fact. I understand that "part" of your point was based on 1)the blockage of a viewpoint, and 2) the possible "biasedness" involved. I AGREE!
    However......that does NOT detract from MY original statement that you need to come to grips with, that involves the "shifting" from the TOPIC to "Gore", "the hurricanes aren't this bad this year", or "but but but Clinton". My point stands strong, and the reality and EVIDENCE of my statement rings clear in the thread progression.

    This is simple...The administration has ONCE AGAIN, been called out on "CHANGING" things to further IT'S "view",, and no amount of "but but but's" can deflect away from that reality.

    I agree with your points, however, the fact remains, that this admin has CHANGED reports and PAID reporters (hence the fascism remark) and that YOUR biasedness that I showed earlier does NOT change the reality of the thread, NOR the facts rendered.

    (There is also a Salon article speaking of such on page 1 of digg now)

    PERIOD
  • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@successrealm
    If you do not see where the other posts were applicable to the subject of the starting post, then you don't see it. I believe you believe what you believe. Have a nice day.
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@successrealm
    If you do not see where the other posts were applicable to the subject of the starting post, then you don't see it. I believe you believe what you believe. Have a nice day.
    (4wheels)



    Apparently, YOU do not see, and "believe" only what you "want" to "believe"...

    My VERY FIRST statement on this thread talked of the "shift" from the THREAD TOPIC of a BUSH OFFICIAL......to more "but but but's" . Perhaps you need examples?
    It's APPARENT that you do.


    --"Listen DAMN IT for the one thousandth time, Katrina and the recent history of hurricanes is cyclical." (Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about HURRICANES)

    --"The same left-wingers have been against big corporations (the ones not controlled by the government anyway) since long before theories of global warming." (AGAIN..Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about "left wingers"...)

    --"Nothing but a screed from a left-wing propaganda site. No digg. " (..Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about "left wing propaganda". More "shifting" and trying to divert or not discuss the issue at hand)

    --and on and on and on....



    Have you been asleep? Have you not seen the incessant "shoot the messenger" tactics and the inability to discuss instead, the MESSAGE?

    I fully understand...
    You speak of "biasedness", but can't seem to understand that I, and others, can easily see the "baisedness" in your statements here, and the SUBMITTED statements from your profile...
    http://www.digg.com/users/4wheel/submitted

    Psssht....you have a nice day...


  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@successrealm
    If you do not see where the other posts were applicable to the subject of the starting post, then you don't see it. I believe you believe what you believe. Have a nice day.
    (4wheels)



    Apparently, YOU do not see, and believe only what you "want" to "believe"... It's evident from your statements here, and from your very own "submitted" articles in your profile, 4 wheels

    My VERY FIRST statement on this thread talked of the "shift" from the THREAD TOPIC of a BUSH OFFICIAL......to more "but but but's" . Perhaps you need examples?
    It's APPARENT that you do.


    --"Listen DAMN IT for the one thousandth time, Katrina and the recent history of hurricanes is cyclical." (Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about HURRICANES)

    --"The same left-wingers have been against big corporations (the ones not controlled by the government anyway) since long before theories of global warming." (AGAIN..Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about "left wingers"...)

    --"Nothing but a screed from a left-wing propaganda site. No digg. " (..Had NOTHING to do really with the TOPIC of the OFFICIAL, but went on a rant about "left wing propaganda". More "shifting" and trying divert or discuss the issue at hand)

    --and on and on and on....



    Have you been asleep? Have you not seen the incessant "shoot the messenger" tactics and the inability to discuss instead, the MESSAGE?

    I fully understand...You talk of "biasedness" but can't seem to understand that I, and others, can easily see the "baisedness" in your statements here, and the SUBMITTED statements from your profile...
    http://www.digg.com/users/4wheel/submitted

    pssht, you have a nice day..
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe you should take your meds. I was trying to give you the last word, but you just had to prove my point. I always have a nice day, but thanks for the thought.
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Maybe you should take your meds. I was trying to give you the last word, but you just had to prove my point. I always have a nice day, but thanks for the thought."
    (4wheels)





    Cute..very cute...
    So now, as expected, and as usual, you have reverted to "shifting" this to be about "me" and the preteen tactics of trying to imply I'm on "meds"...

    You "last word" SHOULD have been nothing more than an ADMISSION that my original statement was correct....I GAVE you clear, concise examples.
    Care to delve back into that, or would you like to continue "digging" your hole? Want to shift to my "spelling" maybe? Or hell, next let's hear you call me a "librul" perhaps? Maybe that would help your argument?
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good grief. Are you thick? I've explained in plain english that what you try to describe as a "shift" are relevant to the points being made about the article posted in the posters minds. All you've done is throw posts that I've submitted into the fray (isn't that "shifting"?) and crying about me not telling you that you're right. You also gave me "clear and concise examples" of my opinion, which I was already aware of before you gave me the examples. I can't tell you you're right because, well, you're not. I will tell you you're right about one thing though. The comment I made about the meds was absolutely adolescent, and I shouldn't have done that, but hey, I was tired of explaining. There's no need in me calling you a lib. Why point out the obvious?
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Good grief. Are you thick? I've explained in plain english that what you try to describe as a "shift" are relevant to the points being made about the article posted in the posters minds."
      (4wheels)


      Really? How in the hell are the three or four examples I offered of others here speaking of "left wing," etc., RELEVANT to the thread title and not SHIFTING? Care to explain that lunacy of yours?





      "All you've done is throw posts that I've submitted into the fray (isn't that "shifting"?) and crying about me not telling you that you're right."


      1) I threw EXAMPLES of OTHERS post’s here RELEVANT to my original statement that some here would shift from the ISSUE, to other areas...You stated I was seeing things, I then POINTED those very things out to you which you should have immediately been able to ascertain.
      YOUR posts and the examples I offered, were ONLY brought up for you, after you mentioned "biasedness"? Did you conveniently forget that part alex? Of course you did.....
      2) No one is crying about you not telling me I'm "right". I simply posted (AGAIN) my original point, which was in reference to the "shifting" of others FROM the topic, to "Gore", "hurricanes in this year", etc. Try to keep up here...I made a statement about “shifting” and I showed EXAMPLES of such, FROM this very thread itself. YOU stated it was apparently a mirage and I was only seeing things. I was right, and you have the examples before you, period. This isn’t that difficult.


      "You also gave me "clear and concise examples" of my opinion, which I was already aware of before you gave me the examples. I can't tell you you're right because, well, you're not."


      My "clear and concise examples" statement was in reference to those here who "shifted" from the TOPIC of a BUSH OFFICIAL to "gore", "Hurricanes in the last few years", etc, NOT to YOUR statements. I then only gave examples of YOUR statements in regards to the issue YOU brought up about biasedness, 4 wheels. Take a breath, read back through thread, and gather your thoughts a little better.


      "I will tell you you're right about one thing though. The comment I made about the meds was absolutely adolescent, and I shouldn't have done that, but hey, I was tired of explaining."


      Perhaps you should do a little more READING, instead of "explaining". It's apparent you got lost a long time ago in this conversation. It has been EXPLAINED to you what my ORIGINAL statement was, and the examples I provided which were based on REALITY should have been enough for you. YOU stated I was seeing things, I then SHOWED you the very things that were apparent....and ON this thread as examples.




      "There's no need in me calling you a lib. Why point out the obvious?"


      I'm probably more "conservative" than YOU are pal. How about realizing that everyone you disagree with concerning the Bush Administration is not simply a "dem/librul" just because you ASSume so...Grow up!
      Acting like I'm a "lib" is easier for you, andsimply gives you a simpleton reason to do nothing more than make childish statements about me "being on meds" and diverts from YOUR inability to stay in the debate and on the ISSUE at hand which is, and has been all along,---"Bush Official Blocked Scientist From Discussing Glbl Warming/Hurricane Link"
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Okay. Or....Whatever.
    • isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Has anyone ever heard of the band Taproot? He screams like every 7th word or so, kinda reminds me of succesfulrealm.
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That's very cute isthisnametaken. Nice of you to actually GET involved with the convo.
    Yawn...

    You "kinda remind me" of my 16 yr old....
    • isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess it was every SIXTH word.
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This all you got kid? Cmon' you're not this weak, are you?

    Look at you....Nothing left but childish preteen cutdowns.
    • isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess you finally found the button to turn off Caps Lock. Or your shift key is broken.
    • isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Back to the arguement. Read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He does a great job presenting all the facts, backing up with evidence and cites all his resources. I assure you once you read it you will be convinced that you will never have to worry about global warming again.

      ..but I'm sure instead you'll just keep your ignorant point of view and bash me by calling me a "child" or something.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.