You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Would you Belieave in Global Warming if 10 category 5 hurricanes hit the USA this yea
- Thread starter mahram
- Start date
Yea, I've read that too. Higher frequency of increasingly violent hurricanes.
Its quite scary, really.
Its quite scary, really.
Obviously the data sample is lacking. No one was measuring wind gusts in Miami Beach circa 1870.....
My family has owned a home in SoFla for a couple of generations. Hurricanes come in clusters, dependent upon the warmth of the Atlantic which is often predicated upon El Nino patterns in the Pacific. The 20's-30's were VERY active. As were the 60's. Perhaps we're entering another cycle of higher activity. Perhaps the cycle of the past few years is already ending. The point is we have very little longer term data to guide us. Also Florida was hit by Cat5 Andrew in 1992 in the midst of a three decade draught of activity. Therefore we know that the strength of any single hurricane is not necessarily correlated to the amount of activity.
My family has owned a home in SoFla for a couple of generations. Hurricanes come in clusters, dependent upon the warmth of the Atlantic which is often predicated upon El Nino patterns in the Pacific. The 20's-30's were VERY active. As were the 60's. Perhaps we're entering another cycle of higher activity. Perhaps the cycle of the past few years is already ending. The point is we have very little longer term data to guide us. Also Florida was hit by Cat5 Andrew in 1992 in the midst of a three decade draught of activity. Therefore we know that the strength of any single hurricane is not necessarily correlated to the amount of activity.
If you want tout examples of "junk science" and "phoney paradigms", the "right" has it's own wonderful examples: (Lack of)Intelligent Design is a true gem; a supposed "science" that contains zero scientific proof and is based on nothing more than the discrediting of an existing scientific theory using only unanswered questions as an excuse to justify it's frail existence. At least James Hansen, and his colleagues, have gotten off their collective asses and gone out to the field to gather their own data rather than sitting around dreaming up excuses to discredit someone else's work without actually doing any of their own.And the globalist left has no problem pushing junk science and a phoney paradigm of 'impending environmental destruction' to stack the deck.
James Hansen is an extremely respected scientist among the entire scientific community; not just among climatologists.
Ralph Cicerone, president of the nationâs leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences: "I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better."
If you would actually read and comprehend what he's trying to say, you would find that he's not arguing against the existence of global climate change as a naturally occurring phenomenon. His position is the existence of global climate change acceleration caused by human industrialization.And we also know climate change has occurred with frequent regularity prior to human industrialization.
No; what people don't "get" is that the attempts at discrediting the work of James Hansen, and those like him, is just as "speculative" as the theory that is being attacked. It's being fueled by the existing industrialists, and their puppets, that don't want to change because it would cost them billions. What people don't "get" is that the push for change is fueled by the future would-be industrialists that see the potential profitability of that change. However, that would mean the financial demise of the existing industrial structures. Hence we have the propaganda, denial, more propaganda, more denial, and now, the use of political tactics to include the suppression of a constitutional right.What people don't get is climatological epidemiology is a purely speculative pursuit.
So if you wish to ignore the facts of the matter and continue with your insistence that such a "purely speculative pursuit" is "junk science", maybe you would like to start by criticizing this administration's position on the matter as equally frivolous:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html
The President's FY '03 budget seeks $4.5 billion in total climate spending â an increase of $700 million.
ok so global warming isnt happening. And like the right saids we are just entering a period where storms are becoming more frequent and more powerful. Isnt that the same problem now. If we are entering a multidecade long period of more hurricanes and more powerful storms, isnt that a concern. Last season, caused 100's of billion of dollar of damage. And they are still repairing towns damaged from last last seasons. The united states cant afford to keep paying out these huge sums every year. Can you imagine 5-10 katrinas hitting the US every year. What business can survive in that kind of environment.
Quote from Pabst:
Obviously the data sample is lacking. No one was measuring wind gusts in Miami Beach circa 1870.....
My family has owned a home in SoFla for a couple of generations. Hurricanes come in clusters, dependent upon the warmth of the Atlantic which is often predicated upon El Nino patterns in the Pacific. The 20's-30's were VERY active. As were the 60's. Perhaps we're entering another cycle of higher activity. Perhaps the cycle of the past few years is already ending. The point is we have very little longer term data to guide us. Also Florida was hit by Cat5 Andrew in 1992 in the midst of a three decade draught of activity. Therefore we know that the strength of any single hurricane is not necessarily correlated to the amount of activity.
Rewriting The Science
March 19, 2006(CBS) As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.
Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.
But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.
Asked if he believes the administration is censoring what he can say to the public, Hansen says: "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it."
What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea.
Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?
"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."
Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.
"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen.
Restrictions like this e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "⦠there is a new review process ⦠," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued.
Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nationâs leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.
"I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone.
And Cicerone, whoâs an atmospheric chemist, said the same thing every leading scientist told 60 Minutes.
"Climate change is really happening," says Cicerone.
Asked what is causing the changes, Cicernone says it's greenhouse gases: "Carbon dioxide and methane, and chlorofluorocarbons and a couple of others, which are all â the increases in their concentrations in the air are due to human activities. It's that simple."
But if it is that simple, why do some climate science reports look like they have been heavily edited at the White House? With science labeled "not sufficiently reliable." Itâs a tone of scientific uncertainty the president set in his first months in office after he pulled out of a global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future," President Bush said in 2001, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House. "We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it."
Annoyed by the ambiguity, Hansen went public a year and a half ago, saying this about the Bush administration in a talk at the University of Iowa: "I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."
Since then, NASA has been keeping an eye on Hansen. NASA let Pelley sit down with him but only with a NASA representative taping the interview. Other interviews have been denied.
"I object to the fact that Iâm not able to freely communicate via the media," says Hansen. "National Public Radio wanted to interview me and they were told they would need to interview someone at NASA headquarters and the comment was made that they didnât want Jim Hansen going on the most liberal media in America. So I donât think that kind of decision should be made on that kind of basis. I think we should be able to communicate the science."
Politically, Hansen calls himself an independent and heâs had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way.
"Should we be simply doing our science and reporting it rigorously, or to what degree the administration in power has the right to assume that you should be a spokesman for the administration?" asks Hansen. "I've tried to be a straight scientist doing the science and reporting it as best I can."
Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public. It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.
"The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say there is so much to study way upstream here that we canât even being to discuss impacts and response strategies," says Piltz. "Thereâs too much uncertainty. It's not the climate scientists that are saying that, its lawyers and politicians."
Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."
March 19, 2006(CBS) As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.
Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.
But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.
Asked if he believes the administration is censoring what he can say to the public, Hansen says: "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it."
What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea.
Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?
"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."
Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.
"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen.
Restrictions like this e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "⦠there is a new review process ⦠," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued.
Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nationâs leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.
"I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone.
And Cicerone, whoâs an atmospheric chemist, said the same thing every leading scientist told 60 Minutes.
"Climate change is really happening," says Cicerone.
Asked what is causing the changes, Cicernone says it's greenhouse gases: "Carbon dioxide and methane, and chlorofluorocarbons and a couple of others, which are all â the increases in their concentrations in the air are due to human activities. It's that simple."
But if it is that simple, why do some climate science reports look like they have been heavily edited at the White House? With science labeled "not sufficiently reliable." Itâs a tone of scientific uncertainty the president set in his first months in office after he pulled out of a global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future," President Bush said in 2001, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House. "We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it."
Annoyed by the ambiguity, Hansen went public a year and a half ago, saying this about the Bush administration in a talk at the University of Iowa: "I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."
Since then, NASA has been keeping an eye on Hansen. NASA let Pelley sit down with him but only with a NASA representative taping the interview. Other interviews have been denied.
"I object to the fact that Iâm not able to freely communicate via the media," says Hansen. "National Public Radio wanted to interview me and they were told they would need to interview someone at NASA headquarters and the comment was made that they didnât want Jim Hansen going on the most liberal media in America. So I donât think that kind of decision should be made on that kind of basis. I think we should be able to communicate the science."
Politically, Hansen calls himself an independent and heâs had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way.
"Should we be simply doing our science and reporting it rigorously, or to what degree the administration in power has the right to assume that you should be a spokesman for the administration?" asks Hansen. "I've tried to be a straight scientist doing the science and reporting it as best I can."
Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public. It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.
"The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say there is so much to study way upstream here that we canât even being to discuss impacts and response strategies," says Piltz. "Thereâs too much uncertainty. It's not the climate scientists that are saying that, its lawyers and politicians."
Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."
Continued:
Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.
Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."
Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."
Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.
Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes âmay be undergoing change.â âUncertaintyâ becomes âsignificant remaining uncertainty.â One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.
"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout."
In a report, Piltz says Cooney added this line â⦠the uncertainties remain so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision making. â¦â References to human health are marked out. 60 Minutes obtained the drafts from the Government Accountability Project. This edit made it into the final report: the phrase âearth may beâ undergoing change made it into the report to Congress. Piltz says there wasnât room at the White House for those who disagreed, so he resigned.
"Even to raise issues internally is immediately career limiting," says Piltz. "Thatâs why you will find not too many people in the federal agencies who will speak freely about all the things they know, unless theyâre retired or unless theyâre ready to resign."
Jim Hansen isn't retiring or resigning because he believes earth is nearing a point of no return. He urged 60 Minutes to look north to the arctic, where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the world. When 60 Minutes visited Greenland this past August, we saw for ourselves the accelerating melt of the largest ice sheet in the north.
"Here in Greenland about 15 years ago the ice sheet extended to right about where I'm standing now, but today, its back there, between those two hills in the shaded area. Glaciologists call this a melt stream but, these days, its a more like a melt river," Pelley said, standing at the edge of Greenland's ice sheet.
The Bush administration doesnât deny global warming or that man plays a role. The administration is spending billions of dollars on climate research. Hansen gives the White House credit for research but says whatâs urgent now is action.
"We have to, in the next 10 years, get off this exponential curve and begin to decrease the rate of growth of CO2 emissions," Hansen explains. "And then flatten it out. And before we get to the middle of the century, weâve got to be on a declining curve.
"If that doesn't happen in 10 years, then I donât think we can keep global warming under one degree Celsius and that means weâre going to, that thereâs a great danger of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You canât tie a rope around the ice sheet. You canât build a wall around the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."
But that's not a situation you'll find in one federal report submitted for review. Government scientists wanted to tell you about the ice sheets, but before a draft of the report left the White House, the paragraph on glacial melt and flooding was crossed out and this was added: "straying from research strategy into speculative findings and musings here."
Hansen says his words were edited once during a presentation when a top official scolded him for using the word danger.
"I think we know a lot more about the tipping points," says Hansen. "I think we know about the dangers of even a moderate degree of additional global warming about the potential effects in the arctic about the potential effects on the ice sheets."
"You just used that word again that youâre not supposed to use â danger," Pelley remarks.
"Yeah. Itâs a danger," Hansen says.
For months, 60 Minutes had been trying to talk with the presidentâs science advisor. 60 Minutes was finally told he would never be available. Phil Cooney, the editor at the Council on Environmental Quality didnât return 60 Minutes' calls. In June, he left the White House and went to work for Exxon Mobil.
Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.
Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."
Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."
Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.
Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes âmay be undergoing change.â âUncertaintyâ becomes âsignificant remaining uncertainty.â One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.
"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout."
In a report, Piltz says Cooney added this line â⦠the uncertainties remain so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision making. â¦â References to human health are marked out. 60 Minutes obtained the drafts from the Government Accountability Project. This edit made it into the final report: the phrase âearth may beâ undergoing change made it into the report to Congress. Piltz says there wasnât room at the White House for those who disagreed, so he resigned.
"Even to raise issues internally is immediately career limiting," says Piltz. "Thatâs why you will find not too many people in the federal agencies who will speak freely about all the things they know, unless theyâre retired or unless theyâre ready to resign."
Jim Hansen isn't retiring or resigning because he believes earth is nearing a point of no return. He urged 60 Minutes to look north to the arctic, where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the world. When 60 Minutes visited Greenland this past August, we saw for ourselves the accelerating melt of the largest ice sheet in the north.
"Here in Greenland about 15 years ago the ice sheet extended to right about where I'm standing now, but today, its back there, between those two hills in the shaded area. Glaciologists call this a melt stream but, these days, its a more like a melt river," Pelley said, standing at the edge of Greenland's ice sheet.
The Bush administration doesnât deny global warming or that man plays a role. The administration is spending billions of dollars on climate research. Hansen gives the White House credit for research but says whatâs urgent now is action.
"We have to, in the next 10 years, get off this exponential curve and begin to decrease the rate of growth of CO2 emissions," Hansen explains. "And then flatten it out. And before we get to the middle of the century, weâve got to be on a declining curve.
"If that doesn't happen in 10 years, then I donât think we can keep global warming under one degree Celsius and that means weâre going to, that thereâs a great danger of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You canât tie a rope around the ice sheet. You canât build a wall around the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."
But that's not a situation you'll find in one federal report submitted for review. Government scientists wanted to tell you about the ice sheets, but before a draft of the report left the White House, the paragraph on glacial melt and flooding was crossed out and this was added: "straying from research strategy into speculative findings and musings here."
Hansen says his words were edited once during a presentation when a top official scolded him for using the word danger.
"I think we know a lot more about the tipping points," says Hansen. "I think we know about the dangers of even a moderate degree of additional global warming about the potential effects in the arctic about the potential effects on the ice sheets."
"You just used that word again that youâre not supposed to use â danger," Pelley remarks.
"Yeah. Itâs a danger," Hansen says.
For months, 60 Minutes had been trying to talk with the presidentâs science advisor. 60 Minutes was finally told he would never be available. Phil Cooney, the editor at the Council on Environmental Quality didnât return 60 Minutes' calls. In June, he left the White House and went to work for Exxon Mobil.
Let me make this simple for liberals who are shaking with rage that this "imminent scientist" has been censored. Government bureaucrats, even those at NASA, do not make policy. Accordingly, they are not allowed to push their own agenda using the prestige and status their government jobs give them. If Hansen wants to do that, he is free to quit and get a job in the private sector. But as long as he is a government employee, he is required to let his political masters make the policy. It is no different than if a staff attorney at the SEC suddenly started issuing press releases criticizing the policies being adopted by the agency. That's also why the CIA desk jockeys who have waged a leak war on this administration are forced to do it using the press and can't just come out and start issuing their own press releases.
This is not that hard.
This is not that hard.
Science is not an agenda.
You can be sure that if the science supported the Administration's position, they wouldn't censor it.
This is a dark ages thought process, censorship of science.....
You can be sure that if the science supported the Administration's position, they wouldn't censor it.
This is a dark ages thought process, censorship of science.....
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Let me make this simple for liberals who are shaking with rage that this "imminent scientist" has been censored. Government bureaucrats, even those at NASA, do not make policy. Accordingly, they are not allowed to push their own agenda using the prestige and status their government jobs give them. If Hansen wants to do that, he is free to quit and get a job in the private sector. But as long as he is a government employee, he is required to let his political masters make the policy. It is no different than if a staff attorney at the SEC suddenly started issuing press releases criticizing the policies being adopted by the agency. That's also why the CIA desk jockeys who have waged a leak war on this administration are forced to do it using the press and can't just come out and start issuing their own press releases.
This is not that hard.