Community

General discussion

Locked

tsunami

By jardinier ·
I can't think of anything meaningful to say about this topic, but perhaps there are others who have thoughts, feelings or personal experiences which they would like to share.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Then how come Bush tried to cover up Global Warming

by Aldanatech In reply to I do indeed maintain my s ...

If global warming is pure nonsense, then how come President Bush tried to cover it up at least once back in September, 2003? If it is such a nonsense, he wouldn't undermine scientists' research, specially from the government itself, right?

From the The Observer:

White House officials have undermined their own government scientists' research into climate change to play down the impact of global warming, an investigation by The Observer can reveal.
The disclosure will anger environment campaigners who claim that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being sabotaged because of President George W. Bush's links to the oil industry.

Emails and internal government documents obtained by The Observer show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that the problem is serious. They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue.

Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group that has received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from the oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain.

The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for our help,' Ebell tells Cooney.

The email discusses possible tactics for playing down the report and getting rid of EPA officials, including its then head, Christine Whitman. 'It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible,' Ebell wrote in the email. 'Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired,' he added.

The CEI is suing another government climate research body that produced evidence for global warming. The revelation of the email's contents has prompted demands for an investigation to see if the White House and CEI are co-ordinating the legal attack.

'This email indicates a secret initiative by the administration to invite and orchestrate a lawsuit against itself seeking to discredit an official US government report on global warming dangers,' said Richard Blumenthal, attorney general of Connecticut, who has written to the White House asking for an inquiry.

The allegation was denied by White House officials and the CEI. 'It is absurd. We do not have a sweetheart relationship with the White House,' said Chris Horner, a lawyer and senior fellow of CEI.

However, environmentalists say the email fits a pattern of collusion between the Bush administration and conservative groups funded by the oil industry, who lobby against efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming.

When Bush first came to power he withdrew the US - the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases - from the Kyoto treaty, which requires nations to limit their emissions.

Both Bush and Vice President **** Cheney are former oil executives; National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a director of the oil firm Chevron, and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans once headed an oil and gas exploration company.

'It all fits together,' said Kert Davies of Greenpeace. 'It shows that there is an effort to undermine good science. It all just smells like the oil industry. They are doing everything to allow the US to remain the world's biggest polluter.'

Other confidential documents obtained by The Observer detail White House efforts to suppress research that shows the world's climate is warming. A four-page internal EPA memo reveals that Bush's staff insisted on major amendments to the climate change section of an environmental survey of the US, published last June. One alteration indicated 'that no further changes may be made'.

The memo discusses ways of dealing with the White House editing, and warns that the section 'no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change'.

Some of the changes include deleting a summary that stated: 'Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.' Sections on the ecological effects of global warming and its impact on human health were removed. So were several sentences calling for further research on climate change.

A temperature record covering 1,000 years was also deleted, prompting the EPA memo to note: 'Emphasis is given to a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the administration's favoured message.'

White House officials added numerous qualifying words such as 'potentially' and 'may', leading the EPA to complain: 'Uncertainty is inserted where there is essentially none.'

The paper then analyses what the EPA should do about the amendments and whether they should be published at all. The options range from accepting the alterations to trying to discuss them with the White House.

When the report was finally published, however, the EPA had removed the entire global warming section to avoid including information that was not scientifically credible.

Former EPA climate policy adviser Jeremy Symons said morale at the agency had been devastated by the administration's tactics. He painted a picture of scientists afraid to conduct research for fear of angering their White House paymasters. 'They do good research,' he said. 'But they feel that they have a boss who does not want them to do it. And if they do it right, then they will get hit or their work will be buried.'

Symons left the EPA in April 2001 and now works for the National Wildlife Federation as head of its climate change programme. The Bush administration's attitude was clear from the beginning, he said, and a lot of people were working to ensure that the President did nothing to address global warming.

Source:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1046363,00.html

Collapse -

You don't make sense

by maxwell edison In reply to Then how come Bush tried ...

.
I was speaking for myself, not President Bush.

I'm in a very small minority of people, I will admit, who thinks that the "global warming" scare is nothing but a huge scam. Whether or not President Bush agrees is something you'll have to ask him. Moreover, the political realities of challenging such a popular notion requires a different approach. President Bush is restrained by political reality. I have no such restraints.

Global Warming and the War of the Words broadcast - both HUGE con-jobs that the public is buying (or bought) hook, line and sinker.

Collapse -

Sure I do

by Aldanatech In reply to You don't make sense

The reason why I ask this is because both you and President Bush openly declare that there is no such thing as global warming. Since both of you share that opinion, and you're such a big fan of him, I figured that perhaps you would know enough about him to at least give a vague reason (in your own personal opinion) of why he would do such a thing as covering up research that could further support the existence of global warming.

Collapse -

He has????

by maxwell edison In reply to Sure I do

.
President Bush has "openly declared", and he is on the record of saying there's no such thing as global warming???? He has????

That's news to me.

Sure, he opposes the Kyoto treaty, but because it's unfair to America and exempts other nations.

Can you provide your proof for saying that?

Sure, he's not a global warming "chicken-little", but he hasn't dismissed the notion either. In fact, he's on the record of supporting programs related to it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/10/bush.global.warming/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

So here's another area in which President Bush and I are in disagreement. I think the notion of man-caused global warming is pure nonsense. President Bush, on the other hand, for whatever reasons, is at least giving it minimal lip-service and millions of our dollars to "study".

Ironic, isn't it? You are closer to agreeing with President Bush on this issue that I am.

Collapse -

Not exactly word by word...

by Aldanatech In reply to Sure I do

He doesn't exactly say word by word that there is no such thing as global warming, but that is what he often implies. At the same time he also prefers keep discussions about this issue to a bare minimum. When Bush was once asked about why he dismissed an EPA report that blamed global warming on human activity back in June 2002, he just sneered and said, "I read the report by the bureaucracy."

Other times he would express that global warming does exist, and there are efforts to fight it. However, it is easy to see when examining his proposals that they are a sham. On Bush's global warming plan released on February 14, 2002 for example, the president announced that rather than reducing the quantity of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, his administration would try to reduce greenhouse gas intensity. This sounded reasonable enough: if there is a less intense concentration of greenhouse gases, they should have less overall effect, right?

The only problem was that Bush's proposal had nothing to do with the concentration of the gases. Greenhouse gas intensity, as the administration defines it, is the amount of greenhouse gas divided by the size of the economy. It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that the size of the economy has nothing to do with the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. Whether we're in a recession or the economy is booming, our planet will warm just the same.

Collapse -

Like I said, Aldanatech

by maxwell edison In reply to Sure I do

.
You are closer to GWB's position than I am. And it is you who should be explaining the merits of what his position really is, not me.

I think the man-caused global warming claim is a bunch of bunk worthy of absolutely no consideration whatsoever. GWB thinks it warrents at least some consideration. While you probably think the end of the world is near because of it.

I think GWB is wrong. And I think you are really-really wrong.

Collapse -

God not again

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to You don't make sense

Max haven't we done this one to death previously?

What happened in the Indian Ocean has nothing at all to do with supposed "Global Warming" it was supposed to be an "Earthquake" and a very big one at that.

It would be easier to describe this as a misfire on a prototype Muslim Weapon of Mass Destruction. Both of those view points make no sense at all.

Anyway what about the BIG QUESTION where where all the surfers? With the water traveling at about 500 KPH as the media has reported that could have set a new water speed record for unpowered craft or surf boards what a ride and if you where in the right place to begin with it could have lasted a long time as well.

Col

Collapse -

Another thought

by maxwell edison In reply to Destructive forces

You said, "there are (or at least used to be) enough nuclear devices to destroy the planet several times over."

Again, I respectfully disagree. There are enough nuclear devices to destroy the human race several times over, but destroy the entire Earth? I don't think so.

Such a catastrophe would change the Earth, to be sure. But would the change be permanent, or would the Earth revert back after a few tens of thousands of years after the dissipation of radioactive material? And hey, that's a mere blink-of-an-eye relative to the Earth's age.

The human race cannot destroy the Earth. We don't have the technology. But I have heard about an "Evil Empire" somewhere that has a Death Star that might be able to destroy the Earth. It uses this ultra-powerful death ray that could penetrate the Earth all the way to the core, blowing it into a gazillion little pieces.

Collapse -

That's funny, but

by mlandis In reply to Another thought

I thought the earth was on the condemned properties list because it had to be removed for a star-route by-pass or clover leaf.

Maureen

Collapse -

Ha..

by maecuff In reply to That's funny, but

I'm reading Hitchhiker to my 6 year old in the evenings (We just finished the Harry Potter series) and he LOVES it. I took him to see a movie the other day, and they showed a preview, the first words that came up were, DON'T PANIC. Joey said, Mom, it's just like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And sure enough, it was. He can't wait until May to see the movie.

Related Discussions

Related Forums