Don't like the science? Change it!! (Global Warming thread)

[tbone]

So the reports that show global warming is natural are fixed or are those not included in this?

Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change
· Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told
· Researchers warned not to talk about global warming

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday January 31, 2007

Guardian

The Bush administration was yesterday accused of systemic tampering with the work of government climate scientists to eliminate politically inconvenient material about global warming.
At a hearing of Congress, scientists and advocacy groups described a campaign by the White House to remove references to global warming from scientific reports and limit public mention of the topic to avoid pressure on an administration opposed to mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.

Such pressure extended even to the use of the words "global warming" or "climate change", said a report released yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project. The report said nearly half of climate scientists at government agencies had been advised against using those terms.

Yesterday's hearings, overseen by the new Democratic chair of the House committee on oversight and government reform, Congressman Henry Waxman, follow years of complaints by scientists that the Bush administration was seeking to put its own spin on scientific research at government agencies. They also complain of a reduction in funding for climate research since the 1990s.

The committee was warned that the campaign by the Bush administration discouraged free academic inquiry. "If you know what you are writing has to go through a White House clearance before it is to be published, people start writing for the class," said Rick Piltz, a former senior associate at the US Climate Change Science Programme. "An anticipatory kind of self-censorship sets in."

The balance appears to have shifted somewhat since the Democrats took control of Congress this month. At least five bills proposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions - an idea that is anathema to the White House - have been introduced in the House and Senate.

However, Mr Piltz told Congress even he was taken aback by the extent of the political interference, in technical reports, public meetings as well as exchanges with the media, in which scientists were assigned minders from the administration.

In the survey of 1,600 government scientists by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 46% had been warned against using terms like global warming in speech or in their reports. The scientists interviewed were working at seven government agencies, from Nasa to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Forty-three percent of respondents said their published work had been revised in ways that altered the meaning of scientific findings. Some 38% said they had direct knowledge of cases where scientific information on climate was stripped from websites and printed reports.

"There were a very large number of edits that came at the 12th hour after all the earlier science people had signed off," said Mr Piltz, who eventually resigned from his job because of such pressure. In one such case, a White House appointee, Phil Cooney, demanded 400 last-minute changes which significantly changed the meaning and tone of the report.

No detail was beyond the scrutiny of administration officials, it seemed. Drew Shindell, a scientist at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, described how officials repeatedly objected to the title of a report which measured rapid warming in Antarctica before dictating their own choice. "Word came back from above that it should be: 'Scientists study Antarctic Climate Change'," Dr Shindell said. "I thought it was so watered down it would be of little interest to anybody."

Much of the testimony yesterday centred on the influence exerted by Mr Cooney, a former lobbyist for the petroleum industry who was put in charge of the Council on Environmental Quality. Mr Cooney now works for Exxon Mobil, the committee was told. In one instance, Mr Cooney personally edited out a key section of an Environmental Protection Agency report to Congress on the dangers of climate change. "He called it speculative musing," Mr Piltz said.

Mr Waxman said he knew of further evidence of such tampering but had been stonewalled by a White House which had repeatedly resisted requests for documents about Mr Cooney's involvement in controlling information.

Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

[tbone]

LMAO, this sounds familiar only insert "intelligence" in place of "science."

“Cherry-picking” science to suit policy or political goals is at least as old as the Eisenhower administration, said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado. The committee itself is guilty of it, he added, pointing to a news release linking rising ocean temperatures to bigger and more frequent coastal storms, something about which there is still debate.

Scientists Criticize White House Stance on Climate Change Findings - New York Times

[ballz2wallz]

Didn't this claim come out at least 6 months ago?

[tbone]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Didn't this claim come out at least 6 months ago?

Possibly, now it's in Congressional hearing with scientists testifying they were coerced and threatened into changing data.

[RMNIXON]

There is a growing amount of politics and money flowing here. Just to show I am not so one-sided as some people try to make me out to be:


Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

[tbone]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

There is a growing amount of politics and money flowing here. Just to show I am not so one-sided as some people try to make me out to be:


Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

Wow, to be so blatant about it as well. Isn't that bordering on illegal? I'm not sure how it would be illegal, but it seems like a definate grey area.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by tbone

Wow, to be so blatant about it as well. Isn't that bordering on illegal? I'm not sure how it would be illegal, but it seems like a definate grey area.

No, offering money for scientists to scrutinize a report isn't illegal, or bad, imo.

Offering incentive for scientists to properly vet information is good.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by tbone

Wow, to be so blatant about it as well. Isn't that bordering on illegal? I'm not sure how it would be illegal, but it seems like a definate grey area.

I don't think so. The government pays for science, the universities pay for science, the private sector pays for science. All have a certain measure of bias about the results they want. The problem is that without the money you can't do much in the way of science these days. Even the UN report they are being paid to debunk was edited and approved by government bureaucrats and the U.N. is not without an agenda here. So who do you trust?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

No, offering money for scientists to scrutinize a report isn't illegal, or bad, imo.

Offering incentive for scientists to properly vet information is good.

If there were evidence showing the report was wrong, there would be no need to put a bounty on it.

This is just one more way they can confuse the situation and say that the jury is still out.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

If there were evidence showing the report was wrong, there would be no need to put a bounty on it.

This is just one more way they can confuse the situation and say that the jury is still out.

There is a need for incentive because the vast majority of climate scientists unquestioningly back climate change. In order to get reputable scientists to take a look at the findings Exxon decided to offer that incentive.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

There is a need for incentive because the vast majority of climate scientists unquestioningly back climate change.

Really? I would love to see some proof showing that they are all backing this without doing any research into it.

Originally Posted by JSmythe

In order to get reputable scientists to take a look at the findings Exxon decided to offer that incentive.

So the people working on the research for climate change aren't reputable, but the people exxon pays are?

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Really? I would love to see some proof showing that they are all backing this without doing any research into it.

I would love to see proof global warming is man made. stfu

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So the people working on the research for climate change aren't reputable, but the people exxon pays are?

... when did I say any of them weren't reputable? I said Exxon was encouraging debate and peer-review, which is necessary in science.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

I would love to see proof global warming is man made. stfu



... when did I say any of them weren't reputable? I said Exxon was encouraging debate and peer-review, which is necessary in science.

Global warming man-made, will continue - Yahoo! News

The report said people were "very likely" the cause of global warming — the strongest conclusion to date — and placed the burden on governments to take action.

[R-Type]

I'd like someone who doesn't have a direct or indirect financial stake to come out and say global warming isn't man-made and back themselves up...and the lackeys that exxon has hired and billed as 'scientists' don't count as 'peers.' People who can be bought are not scientists at all.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

I would love to see proof global warming is man made. stfu

Try opening a fucking science journal.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't think so. The government pays for science, the universities pay for science, the private sector pays for science. All have a certain measure of bias about the results they want. The problem is that without the money you can't do much in the way of science these days. Even the UN report they are being paid to debunk was edited and approved by government bureaucrats and the U.N. is not without an agenda here. So who do you trust?

You are right, however they pay for science without a stipulation about the outcome of the study. This is a bribe asking for them to back their stance or disprove the study. Even pharmaceutical companies are required to adhere to standards that can disprove the effectiveness of their own medication. You enter into a study with a theory and you can either prove or disprove the theory, the funding for the science is never based on only one outcome.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Try opening a fucking science journal.

Do you think those studies prove anything? Do you know how to prove something?

Establishing correlations does not create a cause and effect relationship, that's like, literally day one stats.

And for the record, I think global warming is, in fact, man made.

[Stylerod]

This is an interesting piece. Don't just poo-poo it because you might not agree with the guy, he has a lot of interesting points. Especially what happens to you when you don't "tow the line". I can see it in this thread already.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

It reminds me of the middle ages where you could be arrested as a scientist if you proclaimed the Earth revolved around the sun.