General discussion

Locked

Bush accused of censorship.

By Oz_Media ·
"From melting glaciers to warmer oceans, we are close to the point of no return."

"If you've ever been troubled by the grim global-warming scenarios that have been bubbling at the margins of serious public attention all these years, there's good news: you don't have to wait any longer to see whether or not there's really anything to it all."

"The Canadian winter that just ended was the warmest on record. Last year in Greenland, where the summers are now milder than they've been in 100,000 years, glaciers shed an amount of water into arctic seas more than twice the annual flow of th eNile River, tripling the yearly loss of Greenlands glaciers from 10 years ago. There are robins on Baffin island now, and the people of Pangunirtung are seeing thunder for the first time and walruses, on melting ice floes, are starving to death.

If you drive from Vancouver to Williams Lake, you will have the privilege of travelling to the epicentre of a thing no human being has ever witnessed. It's North America's largest insect infestation in the history of North Anerica's great forests. Briotish Columbia's mountain pine beetles, without cold winters to stop them, have devoured their way across a landscape roughly the size of the United Kingdom."

"You will find yourself following the Frqaser River, where millions of salmon are now routinely dying on their homeward migrations in lethally warm water. In 6 of the past 15 years, the waters have surpassed the fatal 18 degree threshhold. Two years ago tributaries such as the Nicola and the Clearwater rivers, summer temperatures were already exceeding 25 degrees."

"Everything is different now, everywhere. Oru winters are now 4 degrees warmer than they were a century ago, and up and down the BC coast, cedars are literally dying of thirst."

Since 1921, the pacific ocean has been warming at a rate of 1 degree a year, which doesn't sound lik emuch but 10 degrees in the other direction separates us from the deep freeze of the ice age.

"18 months ago, Canada surpassed Saudi Arabia to become the primary supplier of fossil fuels to the United States. Around the same time, the administration of President G.W. Bush, himself an oil man, aqdopted a strict policy of censorship to see to it that no federal official, not even James Hanson, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, would candidly and honestly explain all those grim global-warming stories."

It had been Hansen's habit to be very clear that the shrinking of Greenland's glaciers and the increased atmospheric loading of carbon dioxide, as well as the growing acidity of the world's oceans, are all part of a story that begins with the burning of fossil fuels. Hasen had begun to warn that without a reduction in "greenhouse gas" emissions, the planet would soon pass a 'tipping point'of sorts, where there will be no turning back. Of course, he was quickly silenced by G.W.Bush.

..."What the Bush administration has been especially adamant in censoring is teh research U.S. federal scientists have been doing in teh area of 'impacts and response strategies'. Mainly the strange events unfolding in British Columbia."

In order to have a real understanding of how the Earth has been effected in real examples, you would need to address the federal agency known as the Canadian Climate Inpacts and Adaptation and Research Network (C-CAIRN), which concentrates on the impacts and response strategies the White House doesn't want to hear about."

And if you were to ask such questions of Robin Sydneysmith, C-Cairn's B.C.coordinator, as I did teh other day, this is the answer you would get: "I'm not supposed to talk about it."

Why would G.W.Bush or the Bush administration censor facts from reaching the mainstream American Public?

Why wouldn't G.W.Bush and his administration attempt to educate Americans and improve on the wasteful burning of fossil fuels?

Why would they not be interested in acting in America's best interests?

Because it is not in their own best interests, so they censor what Americans are allowed to know and that keeps the peace and discounts the global warming threats. They focus on the more radical 'Chicken little's' of the world that make extreme claims, it's easy to discount those guys.

But with the war, and other issues regarding global relations, you were all well informed of course. Methinks American should start turning to international news and reading international papers, your own news is slanted and controlled in so many ways it's not funny.

While on the subject of ranting, Canadians were shown the return of a Canadian soldier killed in Kandahar, where Canada is now engaging in major battle as they work to keep it secure, they showed his wife crying as his casket was marched to the hearse by military personells and we all had a momnent to realize the reality of what is really happening in the Middle East. It's too bad America censors this type of news also and makes you believe it is not appropriate to show citizens what they are going through in the Middle East. The wife of the soldier was interviewed and said she thought it was great that her husband received a hero's welcome when he returned, and was not just part of a quiet stats count.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

You just lost your argument

by tommy higbee In reply to The duped speaks again

Specifically, by demanding that global warming is scientific fact. It is not scientific fact, the science is still very much in dispute, and yet you're treating it like a Revealed Doctrine. Nope, it's based on science. The temperature trends are very slight, and no one yet knows whether the trend is a line that will keep going straight up or a curve that will head back down at some point.

If it's so warm there in BC, then you just need to get Al Gore to come give a speech on global warming. Every time he gives one of those speeches, the weather turns remarkably cold!

Collapse -

I've been beating that drum for years

by maxwell edison In reply to You just lost your argume ...

Every time someone claims that man-caused global warming is a "fact", I correct them, just like you did, telling them that it's far from being a proven fact. I even support my objection by pointing out the reputable people, sometimes by name and position, who ALSO dispute the myth. But it falls on deaf ears. They place their "faith" in what they want to believe.

They usually retort in one of two ways.

1. They demand that I "prove" it is not happening.

2. They claim that it's a close enough probability to err on the side of caution, and act as though it's true.

On the first objection, of course, we can't prove such a negative.

On the second objection, no it's not a close enough probability to err on the side of caution, especially when considering the all-encompasing considerations and demands being made -- and by whom. In fact, in my opinion, this is when my "consider the source" trumps all else. (The "source" being fear-mongering politicians, global collectivist advocates, and environmental political activists.)

In Oz's case, they'll be a third retort, and that's to suggest that pollution, in general, kills thousands, maybe millions, of people every year. He'll call that an undeniable fact. (He loves to make-up his own facts.) Therefore, since it will help anyway, we should act as though it's true. Then he'll blame President Bush, The United States, and California for whatever is chapping his *** that day.

But thanks for chiming it.

Collapse -

Just to set the record straight

by Oz_Media In reply to I've been beating that dr ...

Max, nobody is saying that man-caused global warming is a fact. Please show me where I said that. I said, the Earth's natural cooling and warming phase (yes we have proof there was an ice age and it has been warming ever since)is most likely affected by our emissions as we KNOW our emissions form new gases in the atmosphere and some don't break down in to harmless gases. We are creating our own atmosphere cocktail.

As far as a resolution, I am speaking of PEOPLE making small changes and sacrifices in the way they waste resources. Kinda like going on a resource diet, heaven forbid an American diet!
So it' snot such a far fetched idea to err on teh side of caution, IF it's an error of course. Can we afford to be wrong and spead up the Earth's cycle? Nope.

On how people are being killed by our emissions every year. Well that my friend, is MEDICAL fact. Not theory or lefty BS, the autopsy proves it.

CO replaces oxygen in the bloodstream, eventually causing suffocation. Deny that please. Mild CO poisoning is kinda like the flu, but exposure to higher levels creates long term sickness and/or death. In 1993 there were 703 deaths in the USA attributed to CO poisoning, mainly from portable stoves, heaters in homes and vehicle emissions.

Most vehicle emissions related sickness is found in city workers, traffic police, roadside newstand agents etc. When I was in alternate fuels school in the 90's, the figure was well over 1400 recorded deaths in the USA.

This figure rises annually, and that's also why it is so important to not only have a smoke detector in your home but a CO detector too.

Sp you can BELIEVE what you choose to believe, but believe me when I say, CO is killing thousands of people each year, well over a thousand a year in teh USA alone. Take a city such as London England for example, and you should be able to comprehend that with a dense population (not stupid dense) they are even more affected by CO in the streets.

Did you guys grow up in a cave or s all of this really new? Is there SO much propaganda threown at you now that you just don't know what to believe anymore and as a result don't believe anything unless the president says so? (which is pretty laughable anyway)

Effects of Carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) Saturation COHb Saturation (%) Symptoms

0-10 None.

10-20 Tension in forehead, dilation of skin vessels.

20-30 Headache and pulsating temples.

30-40 Severe headache, weariness, dizziness, weakened sight, nausea, vomiting, prostration.

40-50 Severe headache, plus increased breathing and pulse rates, asphyxiation and prostration.

50-60 Same as above, plus coma, convulsions, Cheyne-Stokes respiration.

60-70 Coma, convulsions, weak respiration and pulse. Death is possible.

70-80 Slowing and stopping of breathing, death within hours.

80-90 Death in less than 1 hour.

90-100 Death within a few minutes.

THose would be called FACTS, not heresay or lefty BS, that is a FACT a medical and scientific FACT.

I'm sorry the president hasn't declared it fact yet, I am sure you would all jump on board and start ******* trees if he did.

Collapse -

My reply in a new thread - see link within

by maxwell edison In reply to Just to set the record st ...

.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=193451&messageID=1998466

By the way, will you please spare me the silly comments, such as, "I'm sorry the president hasn't declared it fact yet, I am sure you would all jump on board and start ******* trees if he did."

I think for myself, Oz, and you know it. And if you can't engage in a discussion with me without resorting to such nonsense, then I'm not interested in taking this (or anything) any further. I'm really tired of it.

Collapse -

Sorry for speaking below your mental level then

by Oz_Media In reply to My reply in a new thread ...

I understand that you consider yourself far more educated and above most others here, for that I apologize for any light hearted banter that you may not have welcomed into your world.

For someone claiming to have a sense of humour, you certainly didnt pick up on the jest.

Collapse -

Below Maxwell Edison's mental level? No such thing!

by Absolutely In reply to My reply in a new thread ...
Collapse -

They wouldn't really do that, would they?

by oneamazingwriter In reply to Just to set the record st ...

I really like trees! Hugging I can tolerate, but *******? Not my trees they don't!!

Collapse -

Can you present a competing hypothesis?

by Absolutely In reply to You just lost your argume ...

You describe the temperature trends as "very slight," but have you computed the number of BTUs required for these temperature trends to exist in a mass the size of Earth? I haven't computed them yet, but a sustained increase in average temperature over years or decades of even just 1/10th of 1 degree, times all the mass on the planet, including land, sea and air, is not "slight"! If the measured trends do not correspond closely to measurable (measured?) increases in solar output, it is rational to look for other sources of heat input. If those are not found, it is rational to accept that measured increases in atmospheric CO2, emitted by humans' industry, autos and livestock, are directly responsible, then to decide whether the magnitudes are sufficient to warrant changes in energy sources (and food -- don't eat beef).

Collapse -

Censorship - By all the lefty liars

by Oz_Media In reply to What are you talking abou ...

"Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well."

""There has been a change in how we're expected to interact with the press," said Pieter Tans, who measures greenhouse gases linked to global warming and has worked at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder for two decades. He added that although he often "ignores the rules" the administration has instituted, when it comes to his colleagues, "some people feel intimidated -- I see that."

"Once in 2002, Milly said, Interior officials declined to issue a news release on grounds that it would cause "great problems with the department." In November 2005, they agreed to issue a release on a different climate-related paper, Milly said, but "purged key words from the releases, including 'global warming,' 'warming climate' and 'climate change.' "

"Several times, however, agency officials have tried to alter what these scientists tell the media. When Tans was helping to organize the Seventh International Carbon Dioxide Conference near Boulder last fall, his lab director told him participants could not use the term "climate change" in conference paper's titles and abstracts. Tans and others disregarded that advice."


"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. "

So what, Max, it's a big conspiracy to accuse the White House of censoring scientific reports? Even those from NASA? My God, when do you pull your head out of the sand?!?

Collapse -

Your right our

by zlitocook In reply to What are you talking abou ...

Government would never tell us some thing that is not true! They would never try to stop images of things that might hurt the way the people view or change our idea of what is going on. This never happened in any war, any major action in our government.

Sorry but I have seen too much and read too much to agree with you.
You should not just dismiss every thing that you have read with out reading other places and looking for yourself.
Stay the way you are but look around not just at US sites, and look at the real facts. Go to the earth sites and look up global warming.
Just trying to get you to see what a lot of others see.

Related Discussions

Related Forums