Greatest Deception in the History of Science

[Pa(b)st Prime]

No, I don't think all scientists in the warming camp are leftists. Certainly some are and some aren't.

I'm more turned off by the lack of voice given to dissenting views. If one demands concrete evidance linking pollutants to climate they're immediately labled as enemies of science, lackies for big business, regressives ect.

I can't help but compare the limited climate debate to that of those normally dovish Dem's who felt compelled to vote for war when confronted by a hawkish post 9/11 electorate.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So you are one who thinks that all scientists who support GW are merely leftists promoting a political agenda?

Not likely...

I don't see how it is possible right now to have a definite position either way, I find myself more in the middle, as I am not a scientist, how can I really challenge either side and their theory?

My belief systems is however that what goes around eventually comes around, and if we are greedy and ignore the earth, then the earth will eventually come around to let us know that is not a natural way of living...

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Disenting views, if really based on independent science should be given as much weight as necessary.

Here is the problem.

On which side to err? On the side of global expansion driven by pure capitalism, at the possible expense of the ecosystem, or with caution?

Big business has a bad track record of lying to the public where profits are at stake, which is another reason for concern.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

No, I don't think all scientists in the warming camp are leftists. Certainly some are and some aren't.

I'm more turned off by the lack of voice given to dissenting views. If one demands concrete evidance linking pollutants to climate they're immediately labled as enemies of science, lackies for big business, regressives ect.

I can't help but compare the limited climate debate to that of those normally dovish Dem's who felt compelled to vote for war when confronted by a hawkish post 9/11 electorate.

 

[Arnie]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Where did you get this propoganda? Bush has cut climate research budget (as well as budget for EPA, DOI, and other environmental related programs) year after year. For FY06 budget,

* Total designated climate change expenditures will drop $197 million from FY05. This represents a decline in the Climate Change Science Program (-$26m), the Climate Change Technology Program (-$124m), and International Assistance on climate change (-$48m). Only "energy tax incentives" (or subsidies) increase in the proposed FY06 budget (+$441m).
* Within the CCSP, President Bush's Climate Change Research Initiative faces a proposed $36 million cut in FY06, while the Global Change Research Program is set to receive an increase of $11 million. (Note: the GCRP budget was cut by $100 million in FY05.)
* Within the CCTP, energy conservation faces a $21 million cut, and renewables a $27 million cut. Only nuclear, fossil fuel, and hydrogen programs see increased spending in FY06.

True, Bush has increased government spending tremendously during his 6 years in office. But none of that increase has been in climate research or energy conservation.

Ok, here you go (again)

http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2003/1121/epf511.htm

*EPF511 11/21/2003
Fact Sheet: U.S. Spending on Climate Change to Reach Highest Level Ever
(Budget proposes incentives to spur use of clean, renewable energy) (2200)

President Bush's proposed budget for fiscal year 2004 calls for a 15 percent increase in funding for climate change-related programs, bringing total U.S. spending on climate change this year to $4.3 billion. If enacted, it will be the highest level ever, according to a September 30 White House fact sheet on U.S. climate change policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAABbJgX0fLI&refer=home

Nanotechnology, Climate Research Get Boost in Bush Budget Plan

By James Rowley and Susan Decker

Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Research on climate change and nanotechnology -- atom-by-atom building of electronic devices and circuitry --- would be increased in President George W. Bush's proposed $6.55 billion U.S. Commerce Department budget.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, one of the agency's scientific components, would receive $641 million, or 21 percent more than the current funding approved by the House of Representatives last week. The increase would help finance research on neutrons, climate-change measurement and nanotechnology, which the government estimates may someday support a $1 trillion industry.

Nanotechnology ``promises to redefine 21st century manufacturing just as the assembly line redefined 20th century manufacturing,'' William Jeffrey, the institute's director, told reporters in a conference call from his office in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

More research is needed to quantify the ``sizes, shapes and chemical composition'' of nanoscale materials and to understand possible environmental and health hazards, he said. Nanotechnology research would be increased by $6 million.

Detection and surveillance of hurricanes and tsunamis -- such as the 2004 giant wave that devastated southeast Asia -- would also receive more financing in the president's budget for the National Oceanic an Atmospheric Administration, another Commerce Department component.

Climate Research

The spending plan would add $800 million for weather satellites and unmanned aircraft for climate research and forecasting. Another $80 million is requested for new ocean- science research and $2 million more for tsunami detection and warning.

Another Commerce Department component, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would receive an 8.2 percent increase in its budget to $1.92 billion. That would let the Patent Office add 800 new patent examiners to its 5,000-member force to keep pace with the 6 percent to 8 percent annual increase in patent applications.

``If we don't keep hiring at this frenetic pace,'' the time it takes to approve a patent application could be extended to five years by 2012, Steve Pinkos, the office's deputy director told reporters on a conference call.

It now takes an average of 2 1/2 years to complete reviews of patent applications.

To contact the reporters on this story: James Rowley at jarowley@bloomberg.net and Susan Decker at sdecker1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: February 5, 2007 16:04 EST

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

No, I don't think all scientists in the warming camp are leftists. Certainly some are and some aren't.

I'm more turned off by the lack of voice given to dissenting views. If one demands concrete evidance linking pollutants to climate they're immediately labled as enemies of science, lackies for big business, regressives ect.

I can't help but compare the limited climate debate to that of those normally dovish Dem's who felt compelled to vote for war when confronted by a hawkish post 9/11 electorate.

Really? Why weren't you turned off by the lack of voice given to dissenting views of Iraq war in 2003? That's some hypocracy!

Are you worried about the lack of voice given to the flat earth believers? Lack of voice given to the fire element theory? Lack of voice given to polywater? Lack of voice given to cold fusion?

In scientific world, debates are never fair. If you have the facts, then you're given the voice. If you don't then sorry, you don't deserve a voice. It's that simple.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Arnie:

Ok, here you go (again)

http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2003/1121/epf511.htm

*EPF511 11/21/2003
Fact Sheet: U.S. Spending on Climate Change to Reach Highest Level Ever
(Budget proposes incentives to spur use of clean, renewable energy) (2200)

President Bush's proposed budget for fiscal year 2004 calls for a 15 percent increase in funding for climate change-related programs, bringing total U.S. spending on climate change this year to $4.3 billion. If enacted, it will be the highest level ever, according to a September 30 White House fact sheet on U.S. climate change policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAABbJgX0fLI&refer=home

Nanotechnology, Climate Research Get Boost in Bush Budget Plan

By James Rowley and Susan Decker

Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Research on climate change and nanotechnology -- atom-by-atom building of electronic devices and circuitry --- would be increased in President George W. Bush's proposed $6.55 billion U.S. Commerce Department budget.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, one of the agency's scientific components, would receive $641 million, or 21 percent more than the current funding approved by the House of Representatives last week. The increase would help finance research on neutrons, climate-change measurement and nanotechnology, which the government estimates may someday support a $1 trillion industry.

Nanotechnology ``promises to redefine 21st century manufacturing just as the assembly line redefined 20th century manufacturing,'' William Jeffrey, the institute's director, told reporters in a conference call from his office in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

More research is needed to quantify the ``sizes, shapes and chemical composition'' of nanoscale materials and to understand possible environmental and health hazards, he said. Nanotechnology research would be increased by $6 million.

Detection and surveillance of hurricanes and tsunamis -- such as the 2004 giant wave that devastated southeast Asia -- would also receive more financing in the president's budget for the National Oceanic an Atmospheric Administration, another Commerce Department component.

Climate Research

The spending plan would add $800 million for weather satellites and unmanned aircraft for climate research and forecasting. Another $80 million is requested for new ocean- science research and $2 million more for tsunami detection and warning.

Another Commerce Department component, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would receive an 8.2 percent increase in its budget to $1.92 billion. That would let the Patent Office add 800 new patent examiners to its 5,000-member force to keep pace with the 6 percent to 8 percent annual increase in patent applications.

``If we don't keep hiring at this frenetic pace,'' the time it takes to approve a patent application could be extended to five years by 2012, Steve Pinkos, the office's deputy director told reporters on a conference call.

It now takes an average of 2 1/2 years to complete reviews of patent applications.

To contact the reporters on this story: James Rowley at jarowley@bloomberg.net and Susan Decker at sdecker1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: February 5, 2007 16:04 EST

You're quoting the Whitehouse propoganda. What the Whitehouse didn't say, is that these increases in particular programs came from cuts from other programs. They certainly didn't want to highlight the cuts in their "factsheets." The overall funding was never increased. I made this point quite clear in my lists for the FY06 budget. They were just shuffling money between programs. If you do the same analysis for FY04, which is what you quoted here, you would get the similar result.

 

[Arnie]

The first link is 2004. The second is the current budget. Bottom line, Bush has spent more than any other president on climate research.

 

[neophyte321]

Now, demanding more evidence than a fairly loose coorelation, and pretty graphs showing rising temperatures over the last 100 years, before running our economy into the ground is akin to believing the earth is flat.

I can actually, start right here and walk AROUND the globe. THAT'S PROOF.

Al Gore, his beard and his Hockey sticks are jokes.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from neophyte321:




Now, demanding more evidence than a fairly loose coorelation, and pretty graphs showing rising temperatures over the last 100 years, before running our economy into the ground is akin to believing the earth is flat.

You're confusing science with politics.

Global warming, and human factor in global warming, is scientifically established fact.

Whether you want to do something about it, is an entirely different matter.

It's much more than "loose correlation" or "pretty graphs." There is a big body of research that I have posted about in another thread. Dismissing all of that research without understanding even a little of it says much about you. Trying to influence policy decisions by denying scientific facts is both foolish and destructive.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You're confusing science with politics.

Global warming, and human factor in global warming, is scientifically established fact.

Whether you want to do something about it, is an entirely different matter.

It's much more than "loose correlation" or "pretty graphs." There is a big body of research that I have posted about in another thread. Dismissing all of that research without understanding even a little of it says much about you. Trying to influence policy decisions by denying scientific facts is both foolish and destructive.

You're just completely wrong. There is NO conclusive evidence that it is caused by human acitvities. There are theories, but they are full of holes.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

There is some truth to what you are saying.

However, we cannot ignore that the corporations are highly motivated to denounce any possible theory that would impact their profitability, and we have seen in the past corporations hide scientific data when they know it would hurt their expansion, plans, profitability, etc.

It really does no good to make this issue overly political, does it?

I am sure that if the corporations knew that their profit motivated efforts were impacting the the future in a very negative way due to polluting the air, they would want to do everything in their power, right? It is not as if they every fought any regulation aimed at the abuse of the environment through disposal of toxic chemicals, additives in food, cigarettes, water, air, working conditions, etc.

Or would they want to keep information that could be damaging to them secret and away from the public? What is the track record? Do we believe the corporations because they have the most money to spend on disinformation campaigns?

The corporations would gain greater support if they didn't take the slash and burn approach to those who are in support of global warming theories.

Rather, listening and agreeing that we need to have more money spent in objective research. If saw the corporations funding research with no strings attached, not connect with liberal or conservative think tanks, etc. would help.

Is that really what we see?

Or are we seeing both sides arguing from conclusion, selecting data points of science to rationalize their objectives?

Don't you agree that this is potentially much too important to future generations to put politics above what science can figure out?

Where do we want to err? The bottom line of Exxon oil, or future generations?

I want to see more research that supports either theory scientifically and effectively, not more arguments in the name of profits.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You're just completely wrong. There is NO conclusive evidence that it is caused by human acitvities. There are theories, but they are full of holes.