Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Greenhouse gases hit record high

The steady rise in atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change shows no signs of abating, a UN agency has announced.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rose by about half a percent in 2005, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has said.

The most common greenhouse gas is water vapour, followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane.

"There is no sign that N2O and CO2 are starting to level off," Geir Braathen, a senior scientist at the WMO told reporters.

The WMO said quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) were measured at 379.1 parts per million (ppm), up 0.53% from 377.1 ppm in 2004.

Concentrations of nitrous oxide (N2O) reached 319.2 ppm in 2005, an annual increase of 0.2%.

Levels of methane, another so-called greenhouse gas, remained stable, it said.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6114250.stm

The article mentions China' growing contribution. Although I've been worrying about another contributor as large as the US, I hadn't realized that the US is fueling some of China's growth. While our contribution ~1/4 of world pollution has dropped several % (as other country's proportion rises), something like 10-15% of China's pollution is produced to make stuff for the US (Walmart).
~Samwik

If you do not like CO2, stop wildfires. Each year planetary wildfires emit CO2 conservatively equal to 100% burning the entirety of 2006 petroleum production 337 times. Calls to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 20%, 50%, or 100% (that's down to zero, buster - won't Jesus Christ's bill collectors be pleased?) are self-serving lies.

http://www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/nfn.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/crap.htm

Temps are what they should be given the historical record. Tropospheric temps have been in decline for the past 5 years,

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/Milankovitch_Variations.png
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.htm

"Complexity is easy; simplicity is difficult," Georgii Shpagin.

Uncle Al wrote:
"Tropospheric temps have been in decline for the past 5 years"

Sorry to burst your well-inflated bubble but:
http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/99-175.shtml

So ... so what?

G'day all,

Ah, back to "attack by news release". This isn't science. It isn't even really news. The rise in CO2 has been very well documented and the rise reported is in line with expectations. Why is that news? "The average amount of snow fell in Denver this winter season" Is that news?

Dan, you don't have to remind us that the press is very much willing to make anything about global warming into a news story. In our "quality" major paper with a readership of around a million, there is generally four or five global warming stories before page 10 each and every day.

But what does this have to do with a science forum? Or global warming? Or a discussion about global warming? Nothing, once again.

Uncle Al, your comments about fires really are repetitive. You might be making a good point but the point is the same each time. It would be interesting if you started a thread about this and were willing to discuss the science of fires as a source of CO2. Carbon release is a complex issue and fires have been around started by man for around 40,000 years (according to the research on the second wave of aboriginal settlement of Australia and their hunting methods).

But CO2 from fires hasn't been established, as far as I know, as a net producer of atmospheric CO2. I understand that there is several theories as to why CO2 from fires does not necessarily end up in the atmosphere. So it would be interesting to see this discussed reasonably, with the various arguments put.

And Dan, you didn't burst anyone's bubble. You briefly stated that someone was wrong and then provided a link to a ... news article. Is this really all you can do? Come on, argue some science. Sheesh.

And there is a big problem with the various methods of detecting "average" world temperatures, including the arguments relating to height above land and the fact that balloon measurements (now unfortunately stopped as a consistent measueremnt because of satellites) and satellite data do show a decline in temperatures in the atmosphere. The satellite data shows a very slight rise in temperatures at ground level or near ground level since 1979 but this is often disputed as being "troposhperic" readings.

Regards


Richard

Well likely you won't find this to be news either.

Climate change special: State of denial

The attacks fit a familiar pattern. Sceptics have also set their sights on scientists who have spoken out about the accelerating meltdown of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica and the thawing of the planet's permafrost. These concerns will be addressed in the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global organisation created by the UN in 1988 to assess the risks of human-induced climate change. Every time one of these assessments is released, about once every five years, some of the American scientists who have played a part in producing it become the targets of concerted attacks apparently designed to bring down their reputations and careers. At stake is the credibility of scientists who fear our planet is hurtling towards disaster and want to warn the public in the US and beyond.

Source and more at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10445-climate-change-special-state-of-denial.html

and why the skepticism? Answered in the article as well:

Some sceptical scientists are funded directly by industry. In July, The Washington Post published a leaked letter from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), an energy company based in Colorado, that exhorted power companies to support the work of the prominent sceptic Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Worried about the potential cost of cleaning up coal-fired power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions, IREA's general manager, Stanley Lewandowski, wrote: "We believe that it is necessary to support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists... In February this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels."

It isn't about science ... it is about money.

re: the forest fire comments (Uncle Al & RicS)
Does anyone know the conversion factor between Gtons of carbon and Mtons of CO2? I run into that as I'm looking around. Esp. in re. to volcanos and forest fires.
I think UA's statement refers to Carbon, not CO2. Am I wrong here?
Thanks,
~samwik

Hmmm,

It's All An Industry Conspiracy - Funding by Industry Obviously is Behind any Opposition to Global Warming

Dan, that really wasn't science but at least it was your argument to some extent.

So Dr Singer is paid by Industry as is Prof. Carter. I'm darn sure neither of these climate experts is funded by industry. But I'm also sure that CSIRO is funded by industry. They are doing a study on beer currently, funded by one of the world's biggest brewers plus our government. I thought you liked CSIRO. So if they are funded by industry does that mean they are necessarily wrong?

Actually, if I was a power station company, I'd be desperate to have any voice heard above the incredible deluge of pro global warming articles and, yes, I'd very probably support anyone that had some credentials and really didn't go along with the line that global warming is all to do with CO2. You know why? Because, if I don't, I could find myself saddled with carbon credits or other problems that won't cost me a cent but may harm my customers greatly and damage my country. If I was an oil company and really wanted to gouge the maximum profits possible, I'd welcome carbon credits and anything that made my product dearer. Doesn't matter why the product is dearer, the actual dollar amount of profit the businesses in it retain grows accordingly.

So why would a power station company care about arguing against global warming? They are not going to pay, after all. No way is the US Congress going to pass a bill that makes a power station responsible for CO2 but not allow them to pass the extra costs onto consumers. Funnily enough, the people that run these companies live in the communities they serve. They often know just what damage extra power costs will have on their customers. Which businesses will close up shop and move their manufacturing to India or China (neither of whom have to do a darn thing under Kyoto and both of which are going to surpass the US in the not too distant future in the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere).

So, while this is not strictly a science question at all, the "smoking gun" of industry funding those that are less than enamoured about global warming as a fact and all due to CO2 does not necessarily mean those they fund are unethical. Actually, if it did, then all the pro global warming advocates would likewise be just as unethical, considering where their funding comes from. They need global warming to be a fact for funding to occur. Bias flows from that simple fact.

I know nothing of Dr Michaels but I can guarantee if he has some sort of research that suggests global warming is not to do with CO2 or is less than certain, that he will not get funding through pretty much any institution (even if that funding ultimately comes from the US government). So just where do you suggest he get his funding?

This is an absurd argument to make. Nah. Nah. Nah. We're right. You're wrong. And not only that we are grossly morally superior because you must be crooked or cracked or in cahoots with big bad industry. Just how stupid does this really sound when not worded in the way that it is some big conspiracy theory?

What galls me about this type of attack is it is so one sided. When Greenpeace pulled their little stunt with the glacier that was one of six emptying into a lake, five expanding and one retreating, was it a major news item? Huh! It wasn?t reported in most papers. Environmental groups don?t even hide the fact that they support any research that demonstrates global warming as a fact or man made, yet no one seems to think that this may lead to bias.

The US government has sunk $40 billion into global warming. And you say it?s about money. You are darned right a lot of it is about money. But all the money is going to those that are willing to argue global warming is a looming disaster. The fact that President Bush doesn?t like the global warming arguments does not stop this very one sided allocation of funds. The funds are for ?research?. They must be allocated to institutions, government agencies and the like. No matter the opinion of President Bush, it is these institutions and government agencies that decided where the funds go then. But how did it get to be a multi-billion a year handout? Because global warming became a big issue, that?s how. And what is the business of a government agency or institution, the enhancement of that agency or institution, of course. No good funding research that says, ?No need to do all this research because global warming isn?t all that likely?. That won?t increase your budget the next year. In fact, produce too many reports that are not hugely pro global warming and you may even lose funding. There are exceptions.

NASA has had its funding cut. But NASA seems to have forgotten why it was created in the first place. It is a space agency with a proportion of its work focused inward where space research can benefit our planet. It is the NASA data that shows by far the greatest warming of the planet and massively larger acceleration than any other interpretation of data done by any other institution. NASA seems to have been getting into research areas that were purely earth bound and areas that are already very healthily funded by the US or other governments. The Arctic sea ice is a good example of this. There is a US agency set up to monitor and report on Arctic ice. Why has NASA to do it too? No matter how much the argument is supported by the press or world opinion, this does not protect an agency from funding cuts where they push way too far or start moving into pure politics. Of course, I?m sure NASA and a number of people who support them will disagree with everything I?ve said here. That?s fine. The point concerning all the other institutions remains just as valid.

My agreed funding, since withdrawn, was for $130,000 US, out of an annual budget in the several hundred million region. I was told quite clearly that I was the only person receiving any funding from the particular institute that was not avidly pro global warming. So the funding, really from the US Government, spilt was about a tenth of one percent for research that was not very pro global warming. Another group offered to assist me in replacing that funding. They are paid in part by oil companies. I refused. Do you know why? Not because I thought the oil company or even the group that offered the funding would interfere with my research (even though the institute did precisely that and asked me to alter my findings on a particular piece of research ? hence the funding withdrawal). The funding was offered no strings attached and I really did believe that. But it would have had absolutely no legitimacy at all if it was shown to be funded by an oil company. That is the current political reality so I have no funding at all and my access to research is now somewhat diminished, although not completely. It seems that there are a fair amount of people out there that do not like the current situation, regardless of their personal beliefs in global warming.

So what does this have to do with the science of climate change? Not one thing, providing research can be done without any funding at all.

I really liked the use of the word ?some? in ?some sceptical scientists?. You even spelt it in Australian English for me, the sceptical, not the some. The point to the whole issue of industry funding is to tar anyone who disagrees with any aspect of global warming as a fact, as somewhat unsavoury. They don?t actually say they are crooks but they certainly don?t paint the people in a good light. The letter was ?leaked?. I actually understand that funding of this nature must be reported and so is on public record but the Washington Post wanted this to sound like Dr Michaels is doing something wrong, by implication. Actually, the letter doesn?t even sound all that unreasonable. There are two sides to an argument. Right now one side isn?t getting any hearing at all. We think one side includes ?alarmists?. Someone should stand up for them and we are willing to do so. Just how deceiptful and big bad industry trying to create a "cover up" does this really sound?

It is only if you wish there to be only one side to the argument, that this type of funding seems to be so unsavoury. If Dr Michaels? research is bad then it will be rubbished mercilessly, so why the concern? If he makes some valid points, aren?t they worth hearing?

It would seem that scientific scepticism is the basis of good science, unless such scepticism is aimed at issues such as global warming, then it is just some crank or poor deluded scientist going against the huge weight of evidence.

As for your news article about attacks on ?scientists? who stand up all alone in their isolated voices of reason in support of global warming, first of all, there seems to be no evidence to support this at all. What scientist has actually lost funding or their job because they were pro global warming?

And the attacks that are mentioned seem to be ?attacks? because other scientists, generally specialists in the area under discussion, do not agree with the findings and dispute them. This is then called an ?attack?. Isn?t that how science is meant to work?

I could go on but this is already a very long post. I do have some knowledge of why Mr Santer came under criticism and it seemed well deserved. Michael Mann, had he been in any other discipline, would have been in big trouble. His research has been roundly criticised because it deserved to be. You do not use other?s research to prove a particular view but only select the research that agrees with the results you want. Wow! So actually finding that someone ?cooked the books? on their research, is somehow this ?extensive network? hell bent on bring down the IPCC.

Dan, if you have read this far, which aside from getting a word count, I doubt that you will, a news article suggesting a conspiracy where it seems one side has all the money - a news article sponsored by Shell by the way - is not quite the same as arguing the science. I?ll save you the trouble. There are 1775 words and 8101 characters.


Regards


Richard

I'll read this later, but....

...and re: the bias thing I've read about in various threads. True various scientists are supported by varoius lobbys.
My thought is: It's not like these guys were sitting around doing nothing and some industry lobbyist came up and said, 'psst, heybud, wanna make some money? Go out and prove my side!' I think these guys were already working in the field and, like Gray back in 1984, had work that supported one side or the other and that is how they got noticed to be funded.
I don't think Gray, back then, know what his data showed (had no agenda). [I'm referring tothe thread about 'name calling' in Colorado].
And I don't think most scientists would compromise their research based on some preconceived notion of what it is supposed to show. I'm sure there is pressure from above, but....

???
~samwik

Richard,

I have lately come to have more respect for your position and how you arrive at it, even though I still disagree.

Your posts, however, are long and dense and I usually skip over your longer ones and just read your more bite sized ones. We had this conversation before, but you must be able to say what you want with less words.

Blacknad.

G'day Blacknad,

Wish I could (say it with less words I mean).

I actually edited the very long post here, something I often cannot do because of my medical condition. But I'm sure it could have made the same points in a more compact way. It's just that I don't have the time to do that. This isn't a research paper where I can afford to spend even an hour polishing a response. And I have only limited time in any day to do things. Usually this is around two hours. Sometimes it is a bit more.

I like to come to this site and participate in discussions but cannot afford to spend the time to edit my responses so they are shorter!

I'm glad you disagree with me. I like people that participate with different perspectives. I would very much like to be shown to be completely wrong one day. Just hasn't happened so far (actually I don't think it has happened much at all in my life when it comes to law or science but I'm really too modest to say this, LOL).

Thanks for the respect comment. That is important to me. The comment is appreciated. Wish I could help you with the other bit but I fear my condition is just going to do what it has been doing for nine years now, just gradually get worse. Don't worry, there is a limit to the condition making replies longer. Eventually, I'll not have the time to do more than make the odd comment.


Regards


Richard

appearantly you dont know how they get their money. they have to summit a summary for what their research is about, what they want to find and what they expect to find. If what they say is that they expect to prove that global warming does not exist, they dont get the funds to do the research.

if they say they want to find evidence of global warming, the funds flow freely. They maybe working the field before they do the research, but its as someone elses assistance, doing someone elses work with them getting only the hourly wage they get to prove that other someones point. If they want to get paid the good bucks, they have to be the prime researcher. In order to do that, they have to summit their own summaries for their own research projects. After working as an assistant for sometime they would have learned the politics of getting a research grant.

the number of studies, that have very obviously have "compromise their research based on some preconceived notion of what it is supposed to show" vastly outweigh the ones that dont. At least when it comes to global warming. cant say about other research areas, but i have heard stories there too. Not that often, and could be the bad eggs of that science. In global warming, the bad eggs are the ones that dont agree with the political correct answer.

perhaps you could split it into more than one post. I dont know if thats ok with the mods though.

I too would not mind being proven wrong, if they do it with science instead of hype. so far all i see is the hype and bad scientific proof.

Yes, I don't know all about submitting a proposal, and I guess it'd be asking too much to lie in order to get the proposal accepted and then just let the results show what they show. Probably wouldn't get too much work after doing that a few times.

~samwik

...I shouldn't say 'lie,' but 'phrase the proposal to appear desired by the powers...'

G'day all,

One other small point about the length of my posts. I actually read the links completely. So we currently have posts of three lines that include a link to 10,000 words or more. The very long reply was to a very long link and even the reply only covered part of what the link was alleging.

Perhaps my writings do not read as well as the links but I do wonder if the links are being read or just scanned.


Regards


Richard

G'day Sam,

You wouldn't even get to finish your first research paper. If you think you get a grant and are then free to pursue the topic the way you want, then you still are not aware of how the system works. This may be the case for those with significant authority or prestige, but generally for lower rung persons, the research has stages and milestones that have to be met in order for funding to contiune. Depending of course on how much the funding is for.

In my case, funding was granted provisionally, pending receipt of "test" reports. So I analysed about 30 climate change research papers peripherally and eight in depth. I was sent a few hundred in total. It was "suggested" what papers should be analysed. Now I never actually saw any research money at all, despite carrying out work prescribed in the grant and supposed to have been funded to the point of discontinuance because it was the fifth research paper that I found fundamental flaws in the basic data, known by the researchers, and yet the research ignored the flaws and continued on for an enormous amount of money further.

I've done research previously in global warming. Then it was as an assistant. Every week the primary researcher had to go and beg for some money. I remember he kept on telling his students not to go into climate studies because there just wasn't any grant money available and even if you "fudged" it to include something topical in the research aims, there just wasn't enough interest to sustain anything for long. Since I haven't seen this person's name on papers I figure he missed out on the global warming research boom.

I've done other science research, as a primary. Yes, I had to report on what we were doing and how we were spending the money but other than that, there was no interference or suggestions as to what we should do. Admittedly it wasn't a lot of money but the impression I was left with was that the funders didn't care whether we proved our theory or disproved it, as long as we advanced the science somehow. I really don't know what would have happened if we had gone to them and said: "Sorry, we're stuck. We can't really prove or disprove this." I guess at that point they would have suggested the paper be written on what we had and funding would have stopped. But that is not the same as KNOWING that if you don't mention global warming as a cause, you will not get any future funding at all. Now the question is how do you prove this happens.

It was one of the reasons for the very long post. Because it is almost impossible to prove the absence of grants. But you can demonstrate the pressures involved by just looking at the NewScientist press release and suggesting other reasons for the nomination of those that do not agree with the doctrine of global warming than the explanations in the article. Ones that actually make more sense.

Actually I am astounded that they used Mann as an example of someone that has been "attacked" and an example of what they seemed to be pushing as some sinister plot. His work was rubbished, but mostly politely, by a great many experts in climate science, including a number who agree with global warming because it was bad science. To twist that into something else, imho, is reprehensible. The article implies "Don't worry if you cheat in global warming studies. We'll protect you by calling those that disagree with you pawns of the oil industry or deliberate attacks on the IPCC by something that sounds really sinister".

And, sigh, this too has turned out to be too long.


Regards


Richard

Richard,
I read all posts and follow all links. Usually I read the links, sometimes I only scan them for content, depending how much of it I can understand (I'm a biologist, after all, and don't really get the deep physics posts too well, but I try). So rest assured, your posts are being read by one person at least.

Amaranth

G?day Blacknad,

Shorter Reply to the NewScientist article referenced by Mr Morgan.

Your are right. The post to which you refer is very long. About three pages in Word.

So, just for you, here is a summary:

• Funding by industry is bad. But why?
• Enormous global warming funding is by environmental groups etc that have a vested interest in supporting global warming. Why is this not also bad?
• NewScientist paints those that disagree with research into global warming as ?attacking?. They imply something sinister about such attacks.
• A power station gave a grant to a scientist because it said that there needed to be a voice of reason against the ?alarmists?. Is this really a sinister comment to make or even unreasonable.
• Power companies make profits no matter what restrictions are placed on CO2 emissions or carbon credits or add on carbon scrubers. So why should they care? Perhaps it is because they realise that it will harm their customers. It certainly won?t harm them. The energy still needs to be bought. It will just be more expensive.
• The whole article seemed to be about these bad people that had an underground network hell bent on attacking IPCC. The evidence to this was that ?attacks? were made on scientists that submitted to the IPCC the last time around. But in any other discipline, these attacks, would generally be seen as scientific rigour in examining a theory and the evidence.

Conclusion

The article seemed to wish to turn reality on its head. The funding for global warming studies is enormous. Yet the article implied that those that stood up for global warming were isolated voices of reason that came in for underhand and concerted, and coordinated attacks to the extent that they are unwilling to participate in the process further. Examples were Mr Santer being ?attacked? for linking hurricanes and Hurricane Katrina to global warming and Michael Mann for his hockey stick curve. Michael Mann and his co-authors were shown to have selected data that other researchers had produced in a highly selective way to obtain the results they wished to see.

The article actually seems to be in response to Dr Michaels assertions that scientific journals have been selecting global warming articles that paint the most dramatically damaging picture. It seemed this might have not gone down well. Otherwise, just how do you get an article that involves no science, uses very emotive terms, seeks to paint any disagreement as a tool of big bad industry at the same time as the article being sponsored by an oil company. Now that really was ironic and sort of ruined much of the argument about oil companies and their motives.


Post Comment

Still long, but less than a quarter of the last post. This is a one off. Unfortunately. Having a good day and was able to devote a little more time than normal.


Regards

Richard

I read a bit of some of them ... enough to get the flavour. But when the point is quantity rather than quality I stop reading.

One well written sentence and a link trump a page full of text. So in response to your shorter version:

"Funding by industry is bad. But why?"

Because it comes with strings. Look at the current scandal in the FDA and JAMA about funding of pharmaceutical work being corrupted. For example only publishing favorable results.

"Enormous global warming funding is by environmental groups etc that have a vested interest in supporting global warming. Why is this not also bad?"

In some cases it is bad. That is why I don't quote GreenPeace and some other groups where money may be corrupting objectivity. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You seem please with industry funded research (because you agree with it) and derisive toward GreenPeace (because you don't). I don't trust either of them.

"NewScientist paints those that disagree with research into global warming as ?attacking?. They imply something sinister about such attacks."

They are. That is exactly what they are doing. They are responding with information from public relations departments ... not results from peer reviewed journals.

"A power station gave a grant to a scientist because it said that there needed to be a voice of reason against the ?alarmists?. Is this really a sinister comment to make or even unreasonable."

That is hyperbole not fact. They gave money to someone with a reasonable expectation he wouldn't sink them with a torpedo. No one hires an attorney who will get up in front of the jury and call him a piece of trash. That is just normal human behaviour.

If there had been a real desire for objective research they could have provided access to their facility and taken no financial position. Grad students would have gladly jumped at the chance.

"Power companies make profits no matter what restrictions are placed on CO2 emissions or carbon credits or add on carbon scrubers. So why should they care?"

Good question ... but the truth is that they all do. So perhaps you should put that question to them. While you are at it why not ask Ford and GM, who passed the cost on to consumers, why they opposed seat belts?

Conclusion:
Objectivity means always using critical thinking skills. It means I am as cynical and distrustful of those I agree with as with those who I detest.
The fact that I like someone or something doesn't make them right. And the fact that I dislike something doesn't make it ALWAYS wrong.

Cheers Richard.

You did ask for a name, so...

Regards,

Barry.

the problem is that you ignore the quality of those words. its not a matter of one or the other, its a case that to have max quality, you sometimes have to have a quantity of words.

the reverse is also true.

you try to say things with few words and generally dont get much said, save "your wrong"

and you think there is no strings attached by nasa and others that are looking for proof of global warming? global warming funding is every bit as bad as those scandals in FDA and JAMA, but the ones doing it claim that its ok for them to do it.

at least greenpeace is open about their corruption and the reason for it. they completely believe in global warming, and do their best to prove it and make no bones about that. others pretend that they are doing honest research, yet refuse to pay for any research that disagrees with it. how honest is that.

so how do you get published things in peer review journals when the editors are either hardcore global warming alarmist, or stubbornly refuse to publish data that goes against things their peer review has said was good in the first case. Many of the "attacks" use data from those journals. In some cases they cant because quoteing the articles from those journals would be counted as infringements on copywrite laws.


the same can be said of any grant given to people who say in the summery that they are going to prove global warming. The difference is that he could torpedo them, because they have no control over him. on the other hand, those with the purse strings can cut the funding on any research that does not support global warming. It just normal human behaviour to make sure that the research paper agrees with their public stance.


only if they wanted to be labeled as oil company studgies. moble had to stop funding medical research because the researchers were being labeled as oil company studges and were having trouble getting researchers willing to go against that image. moble did not have any finaceal stake in cancer research. you used to be able to see things on tv that were sponsored by moble, but not anymore, because tv producers dont want that stigma.


dont have a clue about ford or gm, but the electric companies live in the communities they serve. what do you think would happen when the goverment put the cost of the co2 clean up on the electric companies? do you think the e.c. would eat the cost? no, it would be the people of the community that did. The e.c. would actually make more money in the long run but the cost to the community could cost many of them the life of the communtity. how would elderly people that can barely afford the electicity now be able to pay for the increase? how about the disability? what about companies that have a very slim profit margin? what about people that work for companies that would go out of buisness due to the increase in cost of operations?

the electic companies know what damage this would do to THEIR communtities. If the increase in cost hurt the goverments, they will just raise the taxes more to cover the cost of their pay increase.


you claim to be cynical, but you accept the words they post in news articles without question. how is that cynical. being cynical would demand that you demand the facts themselves, not the words of the arthor. your only cynical of those who disagree with you. otherwise we would not have to constantly demand links to the DATA that backs up the links that you give.

you claim to be cynical, but you post politically charged news statments from political organizations, then claim they are neither political, nor that they are mere statements. you claim these statements as fact rather than give the facts that back those statements. being cynical would mean that you doubted them as much as the politically own sites that others previde you in return. but you cant do this.

you claim to be cynical, but your not. If you were cynical, you would be like rics and myself. neither of us are willing to accept either the statement that global warming is caused by man, or the statement that man has cause no damage to the enviroment.

If you wer cynical you would wonder why they are making such noise about something we can do little about, rather than making a lot of noise about things we can easily do, save that it will cost money.

ps. rics i too read what you write, and at least skim all the links people give.

dehammer wrote:
"and you think there is no strings attached by nasa and others that are looking for proof of global warming?"

Lets assume there are strings attached to NASA's budget. Who put those strings there? Lets see NASA is funded by a Republican Senate and House of Representatives, is an agency reporting to a Republican President, and administered by someone who is an appointee of said Republican President. So it would seem reasonable that the strings, if they exist, would be to those who supply the money, the leadership, and the management.

That said ... please provide me with a single reference point to help me understand the Republican Party's desire to produce phony science promoting the idea that there is global warming?

Can you find it in their party platform?
In the President's State of the Union speech?
Where is it?
Inquiring minds want to know!

No matter how deep the hole ... you just keep digging: Amazing!

wrong, wrong, wrong.

they get the money, then NASA decides how to spend it. Washington has no control over how its money is spend once its given to NASA. Its the people there that are controlling it, just as they are in other places that washington gives money too, without restriction.

no matter what people tell you, you keep trying to misdirect it away from the facts you are shown. Its really amazing that you are so political, yet never got into politics. you should have been president by now.

dehammer wrote:
"they get the money, then NASA decides how to spend it."

NASA decides? NASA doesn't have a brain (no need to take the bait Uncle Al).

This is right up there is guns don't kill people ... people kill people.

A gun, without human intervention can not kill a person. And it is people, the Administrators running NASA that make decisions. Especially when it comes to matters of budget. And every one of those administrators serves at the pleasure of the sitting President George W. Bush.

So far every accusation ever made in the press has been that the Republican administration has censored science that favored the point of view that global warming is caused by humans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/newsletter/04292005/index.cfm
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=414

In fact there is currently a federal lawsuit before the courts charging the exact opposite of what you contend. Not a single data-point that supports you.

PS: A google search for ("NASA" and "censoring science") returns 4,070 links.

The whole is deep enough: Stop digging.

Excuse me "hole" not "whole."

G'day Dan Morgan,

I do have a quick answer to your Ford and GM question. The opposition to seat belts in the US, but not Australia, UK and much of Europe was because Ford and GM thought their US customers so stupid that they would not pay for safety. Actually they still treat US customers as being stupidier than the rest of the world with seat belts absurdly complicated because they do not think that simply saying a seat belt will save lives and letting the user put them on is good enough.

The difference, and this is a very big difference, is that Ford and GM were competing against others, including imports that had just started to raise their ugly heads in the form of terribly built but very cheap Japanese cars. If the rules for seat belts were equal the world over I don't think Ford or GM would have cared. But the proposed laws were state by state, not even US wide. They were afraid that it would affect their sales and that others could get around the same laws.

Now a coal fired power station doesn't have any of those fears. Its customers cannot say, hey, your coal is now too dear because of CO2 credits or special filters or whatever so we are going to go solar or wind or hydro. Try and get a hydro dam built in the US. Actually try and put up a wind farm or heaven forbit, import Natural Gas so that California doesn't keep on being at risk of brown outs. So the coal fired power station owner (that actually is in the business of supplying energy and probably would be just as happy if the energy came from nuclear or a wind station) has a real monopoly in the sense that any carbon credit will affect everyone in their industry US wide. And it isn't as if you can import electricity, can you?

Regards


Richard

the president can fire and hire the head of NASA, but only after much more political debate than even you have done here. even more than you have tried to do.

he has to choise the person from a set of canidates that is acceptable to loads of people. Once he has hired him, he still cant do a lot about the day to day things NASA does. If the guy that is in the office does something the president doesnt like, he would have a hard time taking him to task about it.

the current head was only appointed in april 05 so he has not been the one to fund most of the studies about global warming.

just because the president does not believe in global warming, that does not mean other members of his dont.

RicS wrote:
"But the proposed laws were state by state, not even US wide. They were afraid that it would affect their sales and that others could get around the same laws."

Not true. They fought against a single national standard with equal enthusiasm. And the truth is that those not fighting reality: Nissan, Toyota, etc. now are in a position to buy GM and Ford if they don't bankrupt themselves first.

"And it isn't as if you can import electricity, can you?"

Actually you can and we do. The grid shares power between the US and Canada.

dehammer just once you should try looking something up before inventing an answer: Just once!

You wrote:
"the president can fire and hire the head of NASA, but only after much more political debate than even you have done here."

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html

Which part of "Nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate, Michael Griffin began his duties as the 11th Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on April 14, 2005." don't you understand?

This is the man with the power to hire and fire.
This is the man that controls the budget.
You just shot yourself in the foot yet again.
The hole you are digging is deep enough.

G'day Dan,

The point about NASA, is petty and nothing to do mith the science of this thread, which started out not being about any real science anyway.

Dr Hansen has come in for tremendous critiscism. Has the President fired him? I'm sure he'd like to. But the President's powers are quite limited. He can recommend appointments. The Senate then confirms them or doesn't. If the President doesn't then like the person, see how easily he can just "fire" them. You missed one side to the equation. The press.

The President does not control the budget other than at a very macro level. He can and has decided to increase funding for pure research. What happens to that funding is then decided at levels that the President has no control over. The Senate could pass laws to control distribution but once again you have the press.

This is why in Australia we don't have this probelm. We don't have a President. Those that agree with Global Warming as an absolute fact think our Prime Minister is reprehensible because he has not allocated billions to fighting global warming nor did he sign Kyoto. But funnily enough even he, with more power day to day to interfere than the US President cannot tell organisations such as the CSIRO what to do with their money in more than very macro terms.

In Britain they have the argument that the BBC, government funded, is anti-government and often very left leaning in their views. Funny but despite the government funding them and appointing their chairpersons, they have not been able to really fix this. We have the same in Australia with our ABC. If governments cannot exercise any control over the general political persuation of their news organisations funded fully by them, how do you expect your President to do any better with science funding?


Richard

RicS wrote:
"Dr Hansen has come in for tremendous critiscism. Has the President fired him? I'm sure he'd like to."

Hardly. The tremendous criticism has been from NASA's actual scientists, not political hacks, who are hacked off that real science is being censored by White House appointees.