Cheney: ‘There Does Not Appear To Be A Consensus’ That Global Warming Is ‘Caused By Man’
Cheney: ‘There Does Not Appear To Be A Consensus’ That Global Warming Is ‘Caused By Man’
In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded it was “very likely” — or more than 90 percent probable — that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.
Continuing the Bush administration’s long resistance to the science of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney said today a consensus is lacking on whether global warming is caused by human activity. From an interview with ABC:
JONATHAN KARL: Where is the science on this? Is global warming a fact? And is it human activity that is causing global warming?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Those are the two key questions. I think there’s an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we’re in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that’s part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.
Cheney added later in the interview, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.” But he appears comfortable enough in his knowledge to suggest that the scientists are all wrong.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
-John Edwards- The former one-term U.S. Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards has emerged from the shadow as John Kerry’s running mate to become a populist crusader. Edwards has been working hard in Iowa and South Carolina to gain the support of trade unions and blue collar Democrats. His message advocating universal health care, fair trade, and eliminating poverty has struck a cord with many working class Democrats. Edwards has shed his sunny persona to become a straight talker. Instead of skirting the question on how he intends to pay for universal health care, Edwards has made clear he would rescind the Bush tax cuts for those who make over $200,000 per year.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmEdwards populist message may play well in the Midwest and South, but “Clintonian†Democrats may have a problem voting for him in the primary. His message of old-style economic liberalism may cost him votes with socially liberal but economically moderate Democrats. Edwards can survive the primary with big wins in Iowa and South Carolina, but he will face obstacles in the general election. Although he is young and sounds Kennedyesque, Edwards’ only experience in elected office is six years in the U.S. Senate. The general public may respond positively to the new crusader and his agenda, but will they vote for an inexperienced candidate during the war on terrorism?
Odds of winning the primary: 3-1 to win
Odds of winning the general election: 2-1 to win
-Hillary Clinton- Probably the most well known of the top-tier Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton is a formidable opponent early in the primary season. As a former first lady and sitting U.S. Senator from New York, Clinton has developed an extensive fundraising network. According to The Washington Post, Clinton plans to raise more than $60 million by the end of 2007. With this kind of fundraising prowess, it is not no wonder pundits feel she is the obvious frontrunner. Clinton’s name recognition and her ties to her charismatic husband will no doubt help her win over many primary voters as well.
Although Clinton has experience and an ambitious drive to win, she also has several noticeable flaws. She has yet to admit her vote authorizing the Iraq War was a mistake which could anger the anti-war wing of the party. If these anti-war Democrats refuse to vote for Clinton in the primaries, it will be very difficultly for her to capture the Democratic nomination. In the general election, Clinton will have to distance herself from the baggage she has acquired from 15 years in the national spotlight. Clinton is a very polarizing figure. It will be difficult to convert the voters who already have a negative attitude towards her, however if Hillary can capture Bill’s charisma, she may become the first woman to hold the Presidency of the United States.
Odds of winning the primary: 4-1 to win
Odds of winning the general election: 4-1 to win
-Barack Obama- If you have not heard of Barack Obama, you have been living in an in a cave for the past several months. “Obamamania†has swept through the media ranks causing the junior senator from Illinois to become somewhat of a celebrity. As the first credible African-American presidential candidate, Obama has the chance to be the first minority to capture a major political party’s nomination. His youth and message of hope has caused millions of Americans to support him. His speeches transcend race, class, and even political party. Obama is a strong candidate that can easily win the Democratic primary and the general election.
Although loved by the media, Obama has little experience in national politics. He has only been a senator for just over two years. Like Edwards, voters may shy away from Obama due to his lack of foreign policy experience. With the advent of the “War on Terrorism,†voters may want an experienced candidate to lead the United States. In addition to his lack of credentials, the general public may still not vote for Obama due to his race. It may not be said overtly, but many voters still believe the Presidency of the United States is a “whites only†job.
Odds of winning the primary: 2-1 to win
Odds of winning the general election: 3-1 to win
As of now, it seems Obama has what it takes to capture the Democratic nomination, however, Edwards is a better candidate for the general election. Unlike the GOP, the Democrats have no candidate who looks strong both in the primary and the general election. Time will tell if a Democratic candidate can become the true leader of the pack.
Yeah, no consensus, until you ask the scientists.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmGeez, Darth, get a grip on something other than your shotgun…
It’s been pretty well confirmed that I’m an idiot.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pmCentrisDem, please provide a link, next time. Kthx.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:34 pmThese guys are idiots.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm“No consensus”…right. 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, but apparently that’s ‘not a consensus’.
This is intentionally misleading the public. This is equivalent to a drug company intentionally withholding evidence that one of their drugs is harmful.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmExactly, he’s not a scientist. He’s money grubbing evil ideologue.
It’s so hilarious that, in this stage of the game, idiots like Darth Weak-Heart are still trying to claim that global warming isn’t happening and that things are going great in Iraq.
He needs to go!!!
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmCheney — what a Dick.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pmThe VP of War Profiteering is now an expert in Global Warming? Like he was an expert on WMD, Al Qaeda in Iraq, and how the people of Iraq would greet us as liberators?
C’mon Dick, pull my finger. You are bought-and-paid-for by Big Oil. You won’t mind if I’ll take your pronouncements on this subject with a container load of salt, will you?
Stick with your strong suit….selling America down the tubes to fatten your bank account.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm-Mitt Romney- A good looking former “blue state†(Massachusetts) governor, Romney is seen by many as the man who can capture both the core conservative and moderate voting blocs. In terms of policy, Romney is a mixed bag of sorts. He does not support raising taxes or allowing gay couples to marry. Romney, who once considered himself to be pro-choice, is now pro-life. At initial glance, Romney appears to parallel a governor from the Deep South more than someone who led a state that John Kerry won in 2004 with nearly 62% of the vote. Romney’s more liberal positions concern health insurance, education, and the environment As governor, Romney passed laws that expanded health insurance for children, allowed more students to attend college tuition-free, and cut greenhouse gases.
In the general election, Romney stands a good chance of winning the presidency, however, Romney also has a good chance of losing the primary because of his religion. Romney, a devout Mormon, may alienate the conservative evangelical based of the GOP. Without the votes of the evangelical Christians, Romney will not survive the primaries. If Romney is able to carry the primaries, his moderate positions will win over many independents around the country.
Odds of winning the primary: 3-1
Odds of winning the general election: 2-1
-John McCain- McCain has become a household name ever since his Straight Talk Express rode through America in the 2000 Republican primary. Although McCain ultimately lost the nomination to President Bush, McCain’s candor and maverick image created a firestorm of media coverage and public interest. The four-term U.S. Senator from Arizona is once again trying to capture the White House. Due to name recognition, McCain already has an advantage early in the primary season, however, McCain’s image with many in GOP primary voters is tarnished. In 2000, McCain criticized many religious leaders as well as conservative policies. The Senator has since tried to make amends with the religious right. In addition, McCain has also shifted towards the right on many key issues, including taxes and immigration.
McCain still remains popular with many Americans across the country. His popularity with the Republican base is still up for question, however. McCain’s transformation from a maverick into a typical Republican has also cost him media coverage as well as some Democratic support. McCain can win, but it will be a struggle to convince hard-core conservatives of his genuineness and then do a complete turn around to capture key moderate voters.
Odds of winning the primary: 5-1
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmOdds of winning the general election: 3-1
-Rudy Guiliani- A former New York City Mayor, Guiliani may have the same name recognition as John McCain due in part to his role in the aftermath of 9/11. Nicknamed “America’s Mayor†soon after the twin towers fell, Guiliani has garnered praise and gained accolades, including Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in 2001. Guiliani could be considered the most moderate of the top-tier Republican candidates. He supports a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research and civil unions for gay couples. His policies towards crime, taxes, and the death penalty tend to be slanted towards the right.
It will be very difficult for Guiliani to win the GOP primary. His liberal support for many “cultural issues†will turn away many evangelical voters. Guiliani’s only hope to survive the primary is to ensure he becomes the “most electable†candidate. If he manages to convince primary voters that he could defeat any Democrat, he may be able to come through and capture the Republican nomination.
In the general election, the former mayor would be in a strong position to win the White House. His moderate views and popularity will make him a formidable opponent against any Democratic opposition.
Odds of winning the primary: 8-1
Odds of winning the general election: 2-1
He also predicted that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators and it would all be over soon.
Wasn’t this the former energy co. exec who got together with all those other energy co. execs to draft a SECRET national energy policy? Yeah, HE’S a reliable source of information.
“Adolf Hitler to comment on the future of Jewish people, more at 11:00…”
*drums fingers*
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmYa know, when Halliburton realizes it can make a killing off of preventing or minimizing the effects Global Warming, they’ll be all for it then…
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmI’m still rather upset that Cheny, The Dick, has tarnished the image of my beloved Darth Vader, who seems a much nicer guy in comparison.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmYou’ve got to hand it to the guy. At least he’s consistent. He hasn’t been right about one single thing, yet. You’d think he’d eventually slip up and say something that wasn’t complete bullshit.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:44 pmNO CONSENSUS? Just what I expected to hear from the inky MAW of Torticola Cheney…Yes, Dick-LESS, YOU DEFINITELY ARE NOT A SCIENTIST, and DO NOT EVEN QUALIFY AS A MAD-DOCTOR in the movies’ definition or portrayal of such! A more IGNORANT, ARROGANT, STUPID, LOOSE-LIPPED MORON has NEVER EXISTED…FUDGE PACHYDERM of the G(houlish) O(pportunistic) P(edophile) party, THY NAME IS Cheney!
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pmCheney, Cheney
He’s so ZANY!
Believes the moon is made of Green Cheese
And he is carrying a virulent disease
Called “Cheneytus INSANEY!”
The planet Earth, the land, and the air are in the “last throes” if you will.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pmRemember the good ole days of yesteryear (or was it yesterday?) when Cheney and his sad sack followers were saying that Global Warming wasn’t happening?
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pmThey lost that argument, so now they have moved the goal posts to whether or not man’s activities are bringing about climate change.
Jesus, somebody put a fork in the guy…he’s done!
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pmYes that old war hero Cheney is at it again and we can sure believe him as he let us know about finding the WMDs. Yes Cheney the war hero of video games only as he was a coward when it was time to show he was a man. Even the Prince of Wales is more man then the Dickster. Cheney hid behind his wife after 5 deferments and has never saw combat so he plays games of combat. This time sending real men/women to their death as Americans support his lies. Now God made sure we would know what we’ve done to the earth as for year many have been saying it. Al Gore’s picture of the before and after then the storms all around the world, the heat then cold of areas that never had those conditions yet his lying greedy oil man says it’s not real. Why? His job is to make sure the oil country get those big profits so dumbing down of America does the trick. Who do you believe God or Cheney? Do you believe what you see or what Satan aka Cheney tells you?
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:47 pmClearly Cheney didn’t get the memo from Bush’s re-election: when you’ve got 51% support over the obvious alternatives, you’ve got a mandate. Consensus is what happens when The Decider decides to follow his mandate of doing whatever he bloody well feels like doing.
Additionally, for the bonus snark, let’s try this bit of satire…
JONATHAN KARL: Where is the science on this? Is al-Quaeda in Iraq a fact? And is it US activity that is causing al-Quaeda in Iraq?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Those are the two key questions. I think there’s an emerging consensus that we do have al-Quaeda in Iraq. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we’re in a period of al-Quaeda operating in Iraq. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that’s part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by our rampant militarism, overthrowing their brutal but in-control dictators, et cetera. (And when I said “last throes,” I meant “last throes” of their perfectly normal and natural cycle of terrorism. See, what we’re encountering now is the mid-point of the next perfectly normal cycle of terrorism… because terrorism is cyclical, cropping up and then being stomped down and then coming back for revenge and being stomped down and so on; just ask any sociologist, really.)
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pmScientist opposing global warming consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Climate Change: The Deniers
http://www.canada.com/ nationalpost/ news/ story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71
Category: Global warming skeptics
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Category:Global_warming_skeptics
There is plenty of consensus, however, that Dick Cheney is the worst vice-president ever.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmMaster puppeteer, admittedly, but his approval rating is still sitting at 21%(CBS News Poll. Feb. 8-11, 2007)
I am a progressive Christian and things like this are disturbing to me. In the Bible, the earth is portrayed as a blessing from God that we must cherish and protect. Let alone religon and science, isnt it common sense that we should do things to reduce emissions and energy consumption, I mean come on really especially the U.S. things are just getting out of hand, its not only Dick Cheney’s but honestly I see this administration as a bunch of Cry-babies. How could it not be any more obvious at this point that our enviroment needs to be paid attention to, It is because of this that they are cry babies, they refuse to acknowlege a major issue which threatens our children’s future.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmI believe Cheney is disassembling.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pmI like how he distinguishes between “caused by man” and “greenhouse gases” to make his point. As if all those greenhouse gases are increasing on their own and have nothing to do with burning oil or car exhausts, etc.
Some say global warming is caused by people, some say greenhouse gases are the cause so there can’t be a consensus on the issue.
Jesus H Christ. Just when I think the loyal right-wingers and their heroes can’t get any F***ing dumber, Cheney pulls something like this.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmAmerica, do yourself a favor - get rid of this madman now before he inflicts more damage. Where’s the outrage?
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pmdamn! this guy makes Darth Vader cry.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmOnly to you, Dick. Only to you.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmThe time will come that your kin will have to eat money or oil.
I’m beginning to wonder why 1) the MSM even covers these nitwits any longer, and 2) why the blogsphere gives Bush, Cheney, and the rest of them any coverage. They speak to the 28 percent who still believe them and they aren’t going to change unless there is a profit in it for them. Personally I hope there is a direct link between global climate change and the efficacy of stints used to open blocked arteries in ignorant politicians. By that link I hope that as global climate change accelerates, there is an increasing incidence of failure in heart stints.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:04 pmCheney: “Science! I don’t believe in Science. Bring me superstition and ignorance and let’s burn us a few witches. Gotta keep the masses ignorant. Gotta keep the women servile.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 pmHeed my words. I am all knowing. Global warming is real.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm….like anyone wanted to know what Dick “I am actually made out of oil” Cheney thinks about it.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmI have a special mechanism that detects the truthfulness of a group’s position on policy. It’s called a bile-ometer and it measures the level of invective and bile spewed when addressing the opposing viewpoint. The higher the level of bile, the more likely the opposing view has more merit than their view.
The global warming catastrophists know they are out on a limb and must try to shout down the realists else they be exposed for the illogical doomsayers they are.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmOkay, now let’s talk (dare I say rant?) about the 200 million Americans out there who cannot read a simple story in, say, Technology Review or the New York Times science section and understand even the basics of DNA or microchips or global warming.
This level of science illiteracy may explain why over 40 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution and about 20 percent, when asked if the earth orbits the sun or vice versa, say it’s the sun that does the orbiting–placing these people in the same camp as the Inquisition that punished Galileo almost 400 years ago
Cheney:”….Where there does not appear to be a consensus,where it begins to break down ,is the extent to which that part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by a man”.
…Caused by a man!!!…. He stopped short of saying :’ And that man you know him…his name is Al-Gore”….
Of course, for Cheney whose friends and buddies all come from the oil industry ,don’t expect him to entertain such ideas of global warming.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmThis man REPEATEDLY makes decisions without ANY consensus other than his own.
But DEMANDS one regarding proof of human influenced Global warming?
Hypocrite. Schmuck.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pmwhen 51% vote for Bush in 2004, they had a mandate …. when 99% of scientists agree that global warming is, at the very least, in part caused by man, we don’t have a consensus.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:21 pmI think we may well have some kind of presence on Capitol Hill over a period of time. The level of activity that we see today from a political standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think the Democrats are in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pmJust more proof that our country is governed by idiots.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pmThis is the same stalling tactic used by the tobacco companies: deny there’s any link while you keep reaping profits from the offending products. Greedy bastards every one of them.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmof course there’s no consensus. As with everything, on one side are the facts, and on the other is fact-free wingnuttia where they can make up anything they feel like for facts. Hence, no consensus on human-caused global warming because consensus would be an inconvenient truth.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm.
Cheney is a wacko, there IS a consensus of scientists that global warming is caused by man.
in other news forgotten by MSM
Pentagon Red Tape Keeps Medical Records From Doctors of the Wounded
Department of Veterans Affairs doctors are furious over a recent decision by the Pentagon to block their access to medical information needed to treat severely injured troops arriving at VA hospitals from Iraq and Afghanistan.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 pmScientists have been PREDICTING that the Earth’s climate would warm up as concentrations of CO2 increased in the atmosphere for decades now.
What has transpired since then?
The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased - FACT
The average global temperatures have been slowly rising - FACT
So… isn’t that would PROVES a scientific theory to be TRUE? When the predictions match real world results?
How can we NOT attribute this to humans? In fact at this point how can anyone doubt the other predictions made by scientists of what will follow in years to come - that of rising sea levels, increased droughts, etc?
The sun’s variability has NOT changed enough to cause the warming climate we now see. What’s left to point the finger at???
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pmthere’s a consensus dick
http://www.micropoll.com/ akira/ MicroPoll?mode=html&id=23186
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pmWhy am I not surprised? Shameless bastards.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmYeah last hold out idiots like you and Hendler prevent the consensus.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmCynicon Implant sez:
That’s cute, Cynicon, but I have a mechanism too…one that apparently is more dependable than yours.
It’s called a fact-ometer, and it measures these things called ‘facts’. Armed with these ‘facts’ I am able to make an informed decision about a given topic.
(BTW, if you want to see bile, just tune in to FOX at any given moment. Just shut off your ‘bile-ometer’ before turning the channel, as Bill o’Reilly and John Gibson have been known to overload and damage them. ^_^)
“Realists”? You can’t be this stupid. 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations say global warming is real, but you’re the “realist”? Please.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pmActually-
For once, what The Dark One is saying is not completely insane. He admits there definitely IS global warming, and says there may also be environmental causes in addition to human causes. (Dammit, I can’t believe I sound like I’m defending this evil SOB.) I guess I’m just worried about well-meaning progressive people becoming as blindly zealous about our causes as the right wing regressives are about theirs.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
Even the best scientists over time can be proven to have been fools.
Concerning something as complex as the forces of nature, we should be careful about pretending to be completely certain of the causes and consequences. Human activity is part of the situation, but only a part…
Cosmic Rays Linked to Global Warming
http://www.monkeybuddha.blogspot.com
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm“Continuing the Bush administration’s long resistance to the science of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney…”
Shouldn’t that line read “Continuing the Bush adminstration’s long resistance to SCIENCE, Senior President Dick Cheney….”
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pmIgnore scientists and employ psychics.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pmNo consensus amongst vice-presidents called Dick Cheney.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pmTrip — I hear you on the Fox reference — the bile-ometer works on both sides equally well (see Ann Coulter)
Re. my “realist” reference — that was not a comment on how real global warming is but rather a comment on how disastrous the consequences might be and thus what we should do about it. That’s where most of the debate is at this point. And there is quite a bit of disagreement even among the scientists who support the IPCC report about what the consequences might be.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pmmonkeybuddha –
Careful what you say my friend. Admitting that there might be some non-manmade causes of global warming might get you sent to the penalty box. Two minutes for Excessive Reality!
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmThe higher the level of bile, the more likely the opposing view has more merit than their view.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — February 23, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Does this mean you oppose the invasion, and occupation of Iraq?
Because there are few things I can think of, more vile and low than calling war critics “appeasers”, “terrorist lovers”, “traitors”, or saying that they are “aiding and abetting the enemy”, and should be “hanged for treason”.
Unless, that is, you ignore your bile-o-meter when it suits you.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pmAnd there is quite a bit of disagreement even among the scientists who support the IPCC report about what the consequences might be.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — February 23, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Nobody has denied that there is disagreement in the scientific community. There will always be some who go against the consensus.
But fact remains that there is consensus, and that Cheney is not being truthful when he contends the opposite.
That there is such consensus, and that there has been for a few years now, means that the people who know what they’re talking about have looked at the evidence and concluded that human activity does have an impact on our planet’s temperature.
It’s almost funny how conservatives are ready to dismiss science out-of-hand when it doesn’t fit their pre-conceived notions.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pmYou idiots! Turn off your computers! You are using electricity and you are causing global warming! Turn off you computers immediately!
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pmFirst it was if Global Climate Change was real, then it was if man was really responsible now Cynicon Implant says the discussion is really about the consequences. The company that make mobile goalposts must be really happy there are conservatives around to buy their product.
Next talking point will be if Global CLimate Change can really be the cause of all the deaths occuring worldwide. I mean its the storms, starvation, dehydration and disease. It’s not from the temperature.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pmThe National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pmfrom about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods
occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly
impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the
Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the
inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth’s
climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an
assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma’s College
of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort. Dr.
Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global
warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that
noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he
was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming
alarmist and told point blank “We have to get rid of the
Medieval Warm Period.â€
Someone needs to stick a finger in the dyke.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pmWhere’s Dick’s daughter when you need her?
Gregor,
The bile-ometer does not assess one’s own position, it just measures the validity of another’s.
In your example, using the term “traitor” to describe a war critic is quite extreme (and intended to stifle debate through intimidation) and thus would make one think that there must be significant merit to the war critic’s argument that must be “shouted down”
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pmI’ve looked critically at both sides of this issue and I don’t want my grandchildren to look back and say ” Grandpa was duped by this phony science to”.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pmhoo-wee - the Rushbots are out in force again on this one….
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pmI just wish this man would disappear. If we stopped reporting anything he says, wouldn’t we be better off? No, I know, people need to know what a moonbat his is. I’m just so tired of these liars I could scream!
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm#24 I wish Cheney was being disassembled
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmMike, I’ve looked critically at both sides, the scientists and the deniers, and I don’t want my grandchildren to say
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm“You had a chance to do something about this and now we’re totally f*cked up, you idiot!”
Cheney has no expertise in climatology and will not listed to those who are experts. The man is a PIG.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm“Dick”
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pmCheney is correct. Well said Mr. Vice President.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pmDoes anyone really listen to this bozo anymore?
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmPull your head out Dick….. Oh wait that’s what your daddy should have done!
The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate.
This of course means that effects of this natural warming cycle that may (or may not?) be occuring could not have been accelerated or effected in any way by manmade greenhouse emissions. I can’t wait for the next little Ice Age!
Why is it that even talking about addressing climate change, as insignificant as it *seems* to Regressives, elicits such shrill dismissal and weak rebuttal?
If it’s not catastrophic yet, why worry? Let’s just screw over a generation or two down the line!
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pmI’ve looked critically at both sides of this issue and I don’t want my grandchildren to look back and say †Grandpa was duped by this phony science toâ€.
Comment by Mike
Dont worry. If we follow this path, it is very likely that you wont have grandchildren.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:15 pmComment by LIBS ARE SUCKERS — February 23, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
You could at least source your comment, Sucker.
You lifted it from the Heartland Institute’s website, a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry and hardly a scientific research organisation.
But since you brought up the Medieval Warm Period, and the NAS report, let’s take a look at what else the NAS stated in it:
The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution — when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower — are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.
NAS: ‘High Confidence’ That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years
Ah, Global Warming deniers -always ready to cherry pick their data.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pmYou idiots! Turn off your computers! You are using electricity and you are causing global warming! Turn off you computers immediately!
Comment by sattui
Electricity is 100% exergy (available work) which means it can produced entropy which means it is a non-degraded energy carrier. Now, perhaps you are referring to the methods available for the generation of electricity as an energy carrier…
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pmAh, Global Warming (worshipers) deniers -always ready to (make-up)cherry pick their data
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pmCheney - the brains behind AlQaeda
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:25 pmwhich means it can produced entropy
CANT. CANT. Damn!
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pmsince cheney watches fox exclusively, i’m sure there’s a lot besides this he just doesn’t have very good information on, but i’ll betcha he’s an expert on anna nicole’s corpse.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmAh, Global Warming (worshipers) deniers -always ready to (make-up)cherry pick their data
Comment by Patrick1 — February 23, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
What a weak rebuttal. The quote is from the NAS report. I didn’t make it up; you can always follow the link and read the entire document for yourself.
You can also check the IPCC report, where they concluded: The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2. (see Figure SPM-2). {2.3. 6.5, 2.9}
IPCC - Climate Change 2007
Unless, of course, you are calling the NAS, and the IPCC Global Warming “worshippers” who “cherry pick” their data.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:34 pmhttp://newsmine.org/
News and Document archive source for uncovering and exposing
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pmwith over 10,000 articles and documents
Well we have already established the IPCC report as a joke because of no peer review. The NAS is a political organization after government grants.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm“Yes, there is a rise in lung cancer and heart disease, but we don’t know if it’s a natural cycle or not. As far as I can tell there is no real concensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer or heart disease.” The Dick
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pmwe have already established the IPCC report as a joke because of no peer review.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 23, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
“we”? Who is “we”? You and the voices in your head?
The IPCC’s reports are probably the largest peer-reviewed efforts on the subject.
Do you even know what the IPCC is? Or what you are talking about, for that matter?
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmThe NAS is a political organization after government grants.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 23, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
And if the NAS’s purpose was to get government grants, their conclusions would agree with the Bush administration’s stance on Global Warming, not go against it.
What a complete lack of basic logic.
Sshheesshhh….
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pmCheney added later in the interview, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.†But he appears comfortable enough in his knowledge to suggest that the scientists are all wrong.
I’m having flashbacks of the 1996 Presidential debates……goes something like this:
Question: “Does smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer?”
Bob Dole: “I don’t know…I’m not a doctor.”
Yet I believe that one of Dole’s siblings was a heavy smoker and died from lung cancer.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pmEither Karl is a stooge and doesn’t know about the IPCC saying 90% it’s caused by man OR he’s actually starstruck, possibly scared, to be able to talk to Dick and can’t formulate a conclusive followup. Either way, what the hell is he doing asking Cheney as if HE was the expert? I swear, first Jake Tapper, now this guy..
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:02 pmWell we have already established the IPCC report as a joke because of no peer review.
Comment by Patrick1
Pull your head out of your ass, Patrick Star. Do you not know how to use “the Google?”
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 pmFrom p. 13 of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers:
“Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”
Can you libs explain why there’s no global warming in Antarctica?
And can you tell me how U.S. and Europeans nations are going to solve this alarming problem of global warming if China continues to add another coal burning power plant every 10 days, and India adds another one every three weeks?
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmI’m interested in how a faux-religion like global warming must leave its scripture writing to the corrupt UN and an idiot like Algore.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pmwowee - the halfway house for “special needs commenters” field trip must’ve gotten back….that, or Rush’s show just wrapped up and all the dittoheads have their talking points for the day…
you guys are the funniest ever - please never stop letting us “crazy liberals” know exactly what you’re thinking
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:23 pmOf the countless flaws inherent to Pop Science, by far the most pernicious is that, contrary to accepted scientific method, the conclusion precedes any supporting research. Special interests whose agendas may be furthered by the junk premise then incite the media to amplify their positions and ignore both the science and protesting contrarian scientists. Nowhere is this abuse more prevalent and dangerous than in fields of environmental science.
But a more ominous practice has arisen which empowers these special interests to adapt and summarize already compromised research to further fit the desired “consensus†before presenting it as fact to an eager media. This travesty of methodology is brought to you by the folks at the United Nations.
Back in 2001, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) submitted its Summary for Policy Makers as a precursor to its Third Assessment Report. Based solely on that summary, left wing environmentalists and their media confederates immediately exhumed their mankind stinks mantras and declared a victory in the anthropogenic global warming debate. Some scientists associated with the report, however, challenged both its bias and the summary’s oblique politically correct representation of its conclusions. It appeared that rumors of the debate’s demise may have been greatly exaggerated.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pmPatrick knows how to cut & paste, but not how to source it. Naughty…
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 pmSane Voice in a Crazy Chorus
In an article last summer which focused largely on the tactics of eco-maniac Al Gore, I explored the depths to which the GW attack machine will delve to silence its detractors. Gore target and former IPCC member, Dr. Richard Lindzen said that alarmism dissenters have,
“…seen grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.â€
Lindzen has been quite vocal about “global-warming alarmists intimidat[ing] dissenting scientists into silence†and, unlike many of his brethren, has steadfastly refused to succumb. Not surprisingly, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT is now an outspoken critic of the IPCC.
In fact, it was Lindzen who blew the whistle on irregularities in both the 2001 summary and report when he testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in May of that year. After stating that the IPCC was created to support negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions, he gave an astonishing account of the pressure placed upon the scientists who drafted the report.
“…throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that “motherhood” statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their “green” credentials in defense of their statements.â€
He then avowed that the vast majority of scientists contributing to the full report played virtually no role in preparing the summary, nor were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents. Furthermore, it is this unscientific version only, often written to further political agendas, which becomes the basis of media hype and public understanding:
“Note that almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGO’s and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.â€
Lindzen also questioned the postponement of the full report and cited numerous factual misrepresentations in the Summary, including one from a chapter he knew a little about:
“The summary does not reflect the full document (which still has not been released although it was basically completed last August). For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments especially with clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized with the following sentence: “Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.”
Indeed, there was much speculation regarding the delay in issuing the final report in 2001. It came neither from the media nor for the last time
The New Media Journal ^ | February 13, 2007 | Marc Sheppard
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 pmyea for patrick - he can cut-and-paste now!!
good job, Patty!!
next lesson: changing fonts.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 pmCan you libs explain why there’s no global warming in Antarctica?
Comment by Ralph — February 23, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
More cherry picking. But good you are willing to grant the IPCC report credibility.
The heading for the entire section of the IPCC report -the one you lifted the quote from- is: Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.
The point right after he one you quoted states: Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.
Also, your quote shows that Climate Change also affects Antarctica -see, there is “increased snowfall”. Raising global temperatures contribute to higher water evaporation, which causes more snowfall.
And even with an increase in snowfall, the overall size of the glaciers has shrunk -as the summary states: Such dynamical ice loss is sufficient to explain most of the Antarctic net mass loss and approximately half of the Greenland net mass loss. The remainder of the ice loss from Greenland has occurred because losses due to melting have exceeded accumulation due to snowfall.
Did you even bother to read the summary (even parts), or did you happen to find that quote in some climate change-denying web site?
And can you tell me how U.S. and Europeans nations are going to solve this alarming problem of global warming […] ?
The Kyoto Protocol would be a good place to start. Ever heard of it?
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm“Thus, speaking of ‘thousands’ of the world’s leading climate scientists is not especially meaningful. Even within climate science, most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive.â€
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:40 pmCan you libs explain why there’s no global warming in Antarctica?
Comment by Ralph — February 23, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Idiot. Global warming reflects an average temperature worldwide. It doesn’t mean that the temperature rises the same everywhere.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:46 pmCan’t do anything about it because we’re building more coal power plants. The number 1 cause of human CO2 emissions! We’re building more!
So who cares what the truth is on global warming? Nobody on either side of the debate is serious about it.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 pmPatrick1 is copying and pasting from the highly reliable, very scientific source called “The American Thinker” -a blog.
It’s a long-winded smear on climate scientists, with pearls of wisdom such as: “[Dr. Richard Lindzen] explained that the best science students generally moved into physics, math, and computer science — not climate science.”
See, scientists who go into climatology are just not too bright.
If you can’t argue the facts, smear the messenger.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 pmhttp://newsmine.org/
News and Document archive source for uncovering and exposing
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:18 pmwith over 10,000 articles and documents
And can you tell me how U.S. and Europeans nations are going to solve this alarming problem of global warming if China continues to add another coal burning power plant every 10 days, and India adds another one every three weeks?
Comment by Ralph — February 23, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
And America will be adding another 150 coal plants, too.
The only answer is “nuclear energy.” But this crowd won’t allow that. So expect your energy bills to go up even faster than your health care premiums! Enjoy those high bills.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:21 pmAll Right! He’s finally admitted to Global Warming! The rest, of course, is pretty goddamn easy to prove scientifically.
As my old astronomy professor used to say……if the data agrees with theory to several decimal places, what else are you going to believe?
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:21 pmCan you libs explain why there’s no global warming in Antarctica?
And can you tell me how U.S. and Europeans nations are going to solve this alarming problem of global warming if China continues to add another coal burning power plant every 10 days, and India adds another one every three weeks?
Comment by Ralph — February 23, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
You are SUCH a tool. I guess entire icesheets that have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years disappearing in Antarctica, and Rhode Island sized icebergs aren’t enough evidence for you, huh?
Even better….the reasoning of a 5 year old……they’re doinging it, why can’t I . WAAAAHHHHH!
Go troll yourself.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:26 pmI don’t think there’s any real consensus that Cheney is caused by man.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm[…] Read more Cheney […]
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 pmThe only answer is “nuclear energy.â€
Comment by muckdog — February 23, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
“The only answer”? I am not against nuclear energy, but your answer is ridiculous.
There are other alternative sources of energy to produce electricity such as wind, solar, and thermal energies. These have the advantage that they are renewable and non-pollutant. Check out this link. You really do need to get out more.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pmHey Patrick1-
We could be wrong about Global Warming. If so, what’s the downside? Spending more more to clean up our environment. Making it a slightly better world for our kids to live in.
But what if we are right? We are being the responsible people, insuring your kids a livable future by dealing with the issue…not hiding our heads in the sand.
Which side do you want to be on?
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:43 pmHey Patrick1-
We could be wrong about Global Warming. If so, what’s the downside? Spending more more to clean up our environment. Making it a slightly better world for our kids to live in.
But what if we are right? We are being the responsible people, insuring your kids a livable future by dealing with the issue…not hiding our heads in the sand.
Which side do you want to be on?
Comment by Innocent Bystander — February 23, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Sounds like somebody is borrowing a quote from the evil Christians. If they’re right then you’re going to hell. If they’re wrong then you’re no worse off than you are right now…
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pmThere are other alternative sources of energy to produce electricity such as wind, solar, and thermal energies. These have the advantage that they are renewable and non-pollutant. Check out this link. You really do need to get out more.
They don’t generate enough power. If they did, somebody would be doing it. In addition, the costs are exponential.
It may work great in a lab room, but none of what you mention is ready for prime time. We need dozens of new nuclear power plants.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:36 pmI am so sick of seeing this gargoyle’s face! Who told him he could crawl out from under the rock he constantly hides under?
Of course Mr. Go F**k Yourself doesn’t believe in global warming. It cuts into whatever annual percentage he earns.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 pmThey don’t generate enough power. If they did, somebody would be doing it. In addition, the costs are exponential. Comment by muckdog — February 23, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Sure they do, and the costs pay for themselves in a few years. This is now a political and resource allocation and investment issue. What you claim here is just ignorance.
It may work great in a lab room, but none of what you mention is ready for prime time. We need dozens of new nuclear power plants. Comment by muckdog — February 23, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Nuclear? That’s dumb. Waste is a cost you guys never account for, and it’s as big or bigger of an environmental issue as Oil.
Alternative energy is already being exploited and growing. GE has three billion dollars of investment in Wind alone, that supply enough electricity for about 300,000 homes.
The iraq war has already cost us 100 times this figure, meaning that if we had spent them on wind farms alone, based on current wind farm costs of 300million for every 100,000 homes of electricity, we would supply enough electricity for 100 million american homes, and not use any fossil fuels to accomplish this. That’s right, after the initial investment, the electricity for around 100 million homes would have been free.
So your comments are complete ignorance, ignorant boy.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:52 pmSpiro Agnew passes ‘Worst Vice President’ title to Dick Cheney.
Believe me, the Dick earned it!
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 01/ 29/ science/ earth/ 29climate.html
January 29, 2006
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.
Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. “They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public,” he said.
Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. “That’s not the way we operate here at NASA,” Mr. Acosta said. “We promote openness and we speak with the facts.”
He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.
Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. “This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming,” he said. “It’s about coordination.”
Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.
“Communicating with the public seems to be essential,” he said, “because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic.”
Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.
Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.
In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.
He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.
In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA’s mission statement includes the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet.”
He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.
Dr. Hansen’s supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official “order or pressure to say shut Jim up.” But Dr. Einaudi added, “That doesn’t mean I like this kind of pressure being applied.”
The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth “a different planet.”
The administration’s policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.
After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be “dire consequences” if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.
Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules. He said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news media.
But Dr. Hansen and some of his colleagues said interviews were canceled as a result.
In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.
Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. “the most liberal” media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was “to make the president look good” and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch’s priority.
But she added: “I’m a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That’s not our job. That’s not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal.”
Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, at NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so.
Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch’s supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations, he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.
Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: “Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don’t have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?”
Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy’s statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred.
“He’s not trying to create a war over this,” said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen’s deputy at Goddard, “but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public.”
Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy’s office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled.
In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen’s scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views.
“He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world,” Dr. Cicerone said. “I’ve heard Hansen speak many times and I’ve read many of his papers, starting in the late 70’s. Every single time, in writing or when I’ve heard him speak, he’s always clear that he’s speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it’s been.”
The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
Where scientists’ points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing.
One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems.
In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identified the views as his own.
“One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff,” he wrote, “is because one doesn’t have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pmFxck you Cheney
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 pm* The Vice President, in his finite wisdom, does not believe man has caused Global Warming. But, I’m sure he believes man can fix it: the men from Halliburton will be dispatched to fix the problem with our tax dollars.
* Dick “Bile Breath” Cheney makes Satan look like Wilford Brimley.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:37 amWow, I read a comment up there where one guy said somthing like, screw Cheney, he’s not a scientist… neither are you. And could most you grow up and quit saying stuff like, f you and Cheneys an idiot. Your no scientist either… but I do my research before I say things, and heres what is right. Global Warming is not caused by humans to the point were we will cause our own doom. And I have “facts” to prove it. I know what you are all saying. Facts? What are those?… I’ll show you. Read and learn. Don’t watch the liberal news and have your opinions changed because of what some new anchor has to say. form your own opinion and do some research yourself. It might help.
Senate Global Warming Hearing Exposes Alarmist Media
Posted by Noel Sheppard on December 6, 2006 - 17:38.
As NewsBuster Matt Sheffield reported Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works held a hearing Wednesday to discuss the media’s role in causing global warming hysteria in the country. The committee’s website encapsulated the proceedings (emphasis mine throughout):
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, said today’s hearing about the media and climate change revealed that “Scare tactics should not drive public policy.†The hearing’s purpose was to examine the media’s presentation of climate science and featured scientists and media experts.
“As the Democrats rush to pass costly carbon cap legislation in the next Congress, today’s hearing showed that the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ does not exist. Leading scientists from the U.S. and Australia denounced much of the media for becoming advocates for alarmism rather than objectivity.†Senator James Inhofe said.
The press release continued:
“I was particularly interested in testimony by Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard University, who believes that manmade emissions are driving global warming. Dr. Schrag said the Kyoto Protocol is not the right approach to take and agreed it would have almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully complied,†Inhofe added. Currently 13 of the 15 EU nations are failing to meet the requirements of Kyoto.
During his opening remarks, Senator Inhofe stated, “Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.†Senator Inhofe cited criticism from believers in manmade global warming who have slammed the media for presenting “a quasi-religious register of doom, death [and] judgment†and compared the media’s coverage to the “unreality of Hollywood films.â€
Many scientists were brought to the meeting to share their wisdom:
Scientists testifying at the hearing described how much of the media has over-hyped the coverage of global warming and used scare tactics to garner public attention. Paleoclimate researcher Bob Carter of Australia’s James Cook University, who has had over 100 papers published refereed scientific journals, noted that “there is huge uncertainly in every aspect of climate change.â€
“If you look at the ice core records, you will discover that yes, changes in carbon dioxide are accompanied by changes in temperature, but you will also discover that the change in temperature precedes the change in carbon dioxide by several hundred years to a thousand or so years. Reflect on that. And reflect on when you last heard somebody say that they thought lung cancer caused smoking. Because that is what you are arguing if you argue on the glacial time scale that changes in carbon dioxide cause temperature changes. It is the other way around,†Carter testified.
Carter elaborated:
Carter also noted that the media promotes “Couldism, mightism and perhapsism, fueled by computer modeling.â€
Carter explained, “If, could, may, might, probably, perhaps, likely, expected, projected …Wonderful words. So wonderful, in fact, that environmental writers scatter them through their articles on climate change like confetti. The reason is that – in the absence of empirical evidence for damaging human-caused climate change – public attention is best captured by making assertions about “possible†change. And, of course, using the output of computer models in support, virtually any type of climatic hazard can be asserted as a possible future change.â€
There were other speakers asked to give evidence, including someone from the Media Research Center:
David Deming, a geophysicist from the University of Oklahoma, testified that “Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked [by the media] with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.â€
Dan Gainor of the Business & Media Institute noted that reporters are violating their own code of ethics with their one-sided climate coverage. “It also violates the ethical code of the Society of Professional Journalists which urges the media to ‘Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.’ That code calls for reporters to “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.’†Gainor added.
Touché, Dan.
Enjoy it. And for God’s sake… grow up.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:42 ambigboylive (nice name, poof). Were you paid for that pathetic hackery?
February 24th, 2007 at 12:51 amGlobal warming is like a series of tubes…
February 24th, 2007 at 1:07 amDick’s just towing the administration line like a good boy should. When asked if he would watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, George W said “I doubt it”. Jesus Christ. The leader of the free f**king world and he acts like a spoiled little kid on the playground. He may as well have said “I don’t like Al. I don’t wanna play!” It’s high time to get rid of these two. We can’t wait two more years. How much more damage can they do in that time? How many more of our children will die in Iraq in that time? Let’s get off our asses and take America back.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:25 am#109 is the reason we’ll never do anything about global warming. He’s got his head stuck up his rear. Nuclear waste isn’t an issue. Those who think it is are just uneducated, ignorant, or stupid. Which are you? Why don’t you ask France, Japan, China, Britain, India about nuclear waste?
They’re recycling it! 95% of the energy still remains in the waste, and now we know how to recycle it! In addition, all the nuclear waste generated for a family of four over 20 years fits in a shot glass. And in the US we water cool the waste so that we can safely handle it in 30 years.
WHERE ARE THE ALTERNATIVE FUELS? If they existed in large enough quantities to make a dent, we’d be doing it.
You mentioned wind. Maybe GE should stick a windmill in front of your mouth because you’re so full of hot air.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:27 amWell, this guy lies every time he opens his mouth.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:56 amWow, I read a comment up there where one guy said somthing like, screw Cheney, he’s not a scientist… neither are you.
Uh, actually I am a scientist, and I think it is self-evident that you are a complete idiot.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:58 amOh for Chrissakes.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:05 amWhere is this guy from, Pluto?
Is he even human? He is so wrapped up in
pushing the agenda, he probably can’t identify when he is lying.
When is he lying? When he opens that big mouth of his!
Isn’t he the one that contends that all is well in Iraq?
Can’t Fitz indict his sorry ass? Can’t he be impeached?
I cannot believe the American public elected this facist twice!
God help us.
Global Warming is more of a Global Climate change. Most of it is brought about by natural world activities like volcanos, and of course the Sun heating up. To state that fossil fuels are solely responsible, is just a course of action leading to a world-wide carbon tax or something.
http://www.telegraph