RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Louve00 -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 8:56:56 AM)

Well, now DomKen, as I read my own post, I noticed I misread CO for CO2.  Here is a further post on the matter:

Late 19th century scientists experimentally discovered that N2 and O2 did not absorb infrared radiation (called, at that time, "dark radiation") and that water as a vapour and in cloud form, CO2 and many other gases did absorb such radiation. It was recognized in the early 20th century that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused the Earth's overall temperature to be higher than it would be without them.
 
So...there ya have it, or maybe...there I have it! lol 




DemonKia -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 9:06:47 AM)

FR, after read thru

The Extreme Ice Survey is the project to document photographically the changes in the glaciers:

http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/




Louve00 -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 9:13:23 AM)

Yes!!  It was something like that that I saw in that show that filmed the melting of the ice on the poles.

Amazing stuff!




mastrcmmdr -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 11:53:04 AM)

no, it isnt. It is NEVER a pollutant. The whole basis of "carbon offsets" relies on that.




mastrcmmdr -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 12:06:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I wonder if Alan Carlin, staff economist at EPA, had the expertise to evaluate what hypothesis explained what data? Furthermore the staff economists comments on a report of actual global warming science isn't science but commentary.


With as BS in Physics from Cal Tech he is a helluva lot more qualified to interpret science than Al Gore.




pahunkboy -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 12:48:45 PM)

global warming is a fraud.  I hated bush- and the neocons. and now you can add the liberals to that problem.

wait until you see that this is eugenics and YOU are not the chosen ones.   wait until you see a gallon of gas go up $1 and everything go up 20% min.


Wait until you cant afford your electric bill.   cap and trade is a global tax.

...I prefer to read what I sign.    

The TV has hypnotized you and the all seeing eye is robbing you of the very cells in your body.... 




philosophy -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 1:32:35 PM)

......i'm starting to get genuinely worried about you, dude.......




OrionTheWolf -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 2:17:02 PM)

~FR~

Many seem to be skimming over the fact that that was not favorable to the policies of the current administration were excluded and suppressed from an official report. That is manipulation of information that may even be used for congressional committees.




DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 4:06:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

~FR~

Many seem to be skimming over the fact that that was not favorable to the policies of the current administration were excluded and suppressed from an official report. That is manipulation of information that may even be used for congressional committees.

No. it was already pointed out that this wasn't part of the report but an unsolicted comment from the EPA's economist. The attempted manipulation is by those trying to tell the big lie that something was supressed, despite the fact that it is publicy available on the internet at the author's personal website as well as other places, and was never part of the actual report.




MmeGigs -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 5:14:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Racquelle
What puzzles me is why any of the average folk feel the need to rally behind the claim that global-warming doesn't exist.  What do you hope to gain?  It won't keep your taxes lower. 


What puzzles me is why some are fighting so hard against doing anything about global warming when most of the stuff that has been suggested we do are things that don't involve major changes to our way of life and would be a great benefit to us even if humans have nothing to do with global warming.

F'rinstance, better fuel efficiency in vehicles. We hear folks squawking all the time about our dependence on foreign oil, but if we used less gas to run our cars, we'd be less dependent on foreign oil, would we not? Our vehicles would be pumping out less exaust, which would improve air quality in smog-ridden cities. Perhaps we'd have fewer of those air quality alerts where they suggest that folks with health problems stay indoors. Perhaps we could eventually do away with testing vehicles to make sure they meet emissions standards, which costs both tax $ and individual $. Drivers would spend less on gas and have more $ to save, invest or spend on other stuff.

There are a slew of suggestions that can save individual households hundreds of dollars a year. Switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, shutting off the power to appliances and other devices when they're not in use, turning the furnace and water-heater down a few degrees and the air-conditioning up a few degrees... These not only save money for individual households, they reduce the demand on our already-strained electricity infrastructure.

Reducing waste by purchasing stuff that uses less packaging and recycling and composting whenever possible saves $ for a household - we pay less to have our garbage hauled away since there is less garbage and we extend the lifespan of landfills. Creating new landfill sites costs a lot of money that increases our taxes and/or garbage haul rates.

There are loads of things that would save $ and power that we'd never even notice, or that would make life a lot more pleasant. Retiming stoplights, for example.
quote:

Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory assert that, across the nation, traffic signal re-timing programs have resulted in travel time and delay reductions of 5 to 20 percent and fuel savings of 10 to 15 percent.

Another research group says better management of the country's 272,000 traffic signals would cut emissions of carbon monoxide and other pollutants by 22 percent.


Even if the whole global warming thing is a total farce, most of the things that have been suggested to combat it have so many other obvious benefits that it seems totally assinine to reject them just because they're associated with global warming.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 6:25:38 PM)

Why was it not part of the official report? Why was he asked to review things in the first place? The report seems pretty thorough, and it is not saying that carbon emissions created by human society is not causing it. He seems to be warning on the side of caution, about data that is outdated and needs more extensive review.

Seems there was omission and editing of another EPA report a few years ago, but I would need to research that to see if my memory serves me correctly.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

~FR~

Many seem to be skimming over the fact that that was not favorable to the policies of the current administration were excluded and suppressed from an official report. That is manipulation of information that may even be used for congressional committees.

No. it was already pointed out that this wasn't part of the report but an unsolicted comment from the EPA's economist. The attempted manipulation is by those trying to tell the big lie that something was supressed, despite the fact that it is publicy available on the internet at the author's personal website as well as other places, and was never part of the actual report.




servantforuse -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 6:33:56 PM)

P A Hunk sounds more and more conservative to me every day. I think we might even have a convert...




DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 6:51:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Why was it not part of the official report? Why was he asked to review things in the first place? The report seems pretty thorough, and it is not saying that carbon emissions created by human society is not causing it. He seems to be warning on the side of caution, about data that is outdated and needs more extensive review.

Seems there was omission and editing of another EPA report a few years ago, but I would need to research that to see if my memory serves me correctly.

Check the facts, he wasn't asked to review anything. His comment was unsolcited. He's an economist misusing data. The actual climate experts have dealt with all of his claims before. They are standard GW denialist claims long debunked.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 7:26:10 PM)

What facts? Could you provide a link, because in his report he states "because we were only given a few days to review this lengthy document" . Also, the report is by two people, and not just one. Why the omission of this report in the official EPA report to Congress?


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Why was it not part of the official report? Why was he asked to review things in the first place? The report seems pretty thorough, and it is not saying that carbon emissions created by human society is not causing it. He seems to be warning on the side of caution, about data that is outdated and needs more extensive review.

Seems there was omission and editing of another EPA report a few years ago, but I would need to research that to see if my memory serves me correctly.

Check the facts, he wasn't asked to review anything. His comment was unsolcited. He's an economist misusing data. The actual climate experts have dealt with all of his claims before. They are standard GW denialist claims long debunked.




DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 8:41:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

What facts? Could you provide a link, because in his report he states "because we were only given a few days to review this lengthy document" . Also, the report is by two people, and not just one. Why the omission of this report in the official EPA report to Congress?


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Why was it not part of the official report? Why was he asked to review things in the first place? The report seems pretty thorough, and it is not saying that carbon emissions created by human society is not causing it. He seems to be warning on the side of caution, about data that is outdated and needs more extensive review.

Seems there was omission and editing of another EPA report a few years ago, but I would need to research that to see if my memory serves me correctly.

Check the facts, he wasn't asked to review anything. His comment was unsolcited. He's an economist misusing data. The actual climate experts have dealt with all of his claims before. They are standard GW denialist claims long debunked.


How many different ways does this have to said? It isn't part of the report because it was NEVER supposed to be part of the report. It is, as it is clearly labeled, a comment on the report by the EPA's staff economist. He has complained that it wasn't included but he can't say it was ever supposed to be included because it clearly wasn't.

As to who asked him to review it? Nobody as far as I can find. He never claims that his comment was solicited by anyone in government.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 9:27:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
How many different ways does this have to said? It isn't part of the report because it was NEVER supposed to be part of the report. It is, as it is clearly labeled, a comment on the report by the EPA's staff economist. He has complained that it wasn't included but he can't say it was ever supposed to be included because it clearly wasn't.


Don't need to be a dick, I was asking a question. Something does not add up. If you actually read the report, it states clearly that they (the two authors) were only given a few days to review the data. Your contention is that they were never asked to review the data. I asked for a link or something I could read, or even what you read somewhere. If they were asked to review data, and submit their findings, then it should be part of the report. The exception would be guidelines already established that would exclude it in it's entirety, but may reference it as a seperate article to the main report.

quote:


As to who asked him to review it? Nobody as far as I can find. He never claims that his comment was solicited by anyone in government.



I find it difficult to believe that two government employees would put the time and effort to create a 90 something page report, filled with data and statistics because they were bored and had nothing better to do. Maybe there was a miscommunication, but clearly the two authors had something that indicated to them that they were supposed to do this work.

Do you have anything that shows otherwise? If not, then it is conjecture unless it is investigated or more information comes to light. It can be seen why there may be motive to exclude this information though, so it puts the EPA and the administration in a poor light. The Bush admin changed a reports wording to cast it in a favorable light for what they wanted to do. It appears that the Obama admin has excluded information to achieve the same objective.




DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 9:54:55 PM)

From Sanity's original article:
quote:

"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

IOW the guy wasn't told to write this and new management at the EPA decided he should actually do some work that was assigned to him. He is upset, too bad for him. I'd think all the whiners about government excesses would be jumping for joy that one highly paid government employee was actually doing assigned work rather than doing what ever he felt like. Of course those folks don't really care about government waste unless its a Democratic official doing the wasting instead of being the one stopping the waste.




TheHeretic -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 10:11:41 PM)

     The climate on this planet warmed and cooled for millions of years before our species ever started banging rocks together, it will warm and cool for millions of years after we are extinct. 

    




DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 10:43:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     The climate on this planet warmed and cooled for millions of years before our species ever started banging rocks together, it will warm and cool for millions of years after we are extinct. 

True enough but shouldn't we avoid actions that might hasten our own extinction?




philosophy -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (6/29/2009 11:51:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

    The climate on this planet warmed and cooled for millions of years before our species ever started banging rocks together, it will warm and cool for millions of years after we are extinct. 

   


...oh come on.......thought you of all people wouldn't misrepresent the argument. It's not about whether or not the climate is warming or cooling...it's about how fast it's happening. No serious scientist argues against a warming/cooling cycle.......but the pace of that change, the apparent correlation with the speeding up of that change with human activities, is worrying.
Systems as old as the climate reach an equilibrium through a steady cycle of change......speed that change up too much and the equilibrium is threatened....with unpredictable results.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125