U.S. Set To Spend $5.8 Billion In 2005 On Climate Change (from ATSNN)

More than 200 biologists and other researchers in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirm that they have been directed to alter their official scientific findings, says a survey released last week. The scientists say business interests apply political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions that might interfere with profits, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies. "The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," says Lexi Shultz ??? of the Union of Concerned Scientists. According to critics, the Bush administration routinely alters science to suit political objectives.



Bush Silencing Scientists, Again

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic premises just aren't so."

Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency."

A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."

Originally posted by marg6043

the ones that are the biggest polluters are his bodies in the Oil, gas, energy and nuclear companies they all very handsome donors to his campaigns.

He is not protecting jobs he is protecting the big boys at the corporate level.

Originally posted by marg6043
People you have to understand that the reason for the bush administration been against any agreement with the Kyoto protocol is that will have to reduced the Carbon dioxide, emissions.

Originally posted by Umbrax

With out the Eco system there is no economy, period.

Originally posted by mrwupy
We shall go on, even if were no longer living on and poluting this planet.

I shall miss it though.

Originally posted by soficrow



Hahaha....This is so true. There is the age old rule, "Don't S@!T where you eat." and few people seem to realize that at the moment, were all eating on planet Earth.

Love and light,

Wupy

Waterless Oceans The oceans will completely disappear in about one billion years due to increased temperatures from a maturing sun. The problems begin in half that time because of falling levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As time progresses, the sun, like all main sequence stars, is getting brighter and that affects the climate of our planet. Eventually temperatures will become high enough so that the oceans evaporate. At 140 degrees Fahrenheit, water becomes a major constituent of the atmosphere. Much of this water migrates to the stratosphere where it is lost to the vacuum. Eventually, the oceans will evaporate into space.
www.ocean98.org...

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

I think Kyoto is more political agenda than plan for cleaning the planet.

Originally posted by mrwupy

We are NOT killing this planet. Its gone thru extinction after extinction in the past, Four major ones I believe, and each time the planet has recovered nicely.

Originally posted by ANOK

But no time in history, that we know of, has man been industrialised....
You can't say we are not killing the planet because it hasn't been killed in the past. We didn't have billions of cars in the past, we didn't burn fossil fuels on the levels we do now, in the past etc....etc...
We didn't have a 6,446,131,400 population in the past.

Originally posted by ANOK

But no time in history, that we know of, has man been industrialised....
You can't say we are not killing the planet because it hasn't been killed in the past. We didn't have billions of cars in the past, we didn't burn fossil fuels on the levels we do now, in the past etc....etc...
We didn't have a 6,446,131,400 population in the past.

[edit on 15/2/2005 by ANOK]

A new research report presents some quantitative predictions, based on computer models, of how California’s climate will be affected by global warming. The following data shows predicted average change in the years 2070 to 2099.

Lower emissions Higher emissions

Change in: scenario* scenario*

Temperature (statewide average)

Summer 4° higher 15° higher

Winter 4° higher 7° higher.

Precipitation (statewide average)

Annual 1 1/2 inches more 6 1/4 inches less.

Sea level rise 7 3/4 inches 16 1/4 inches.

April 1 snowpack

(all elevations) 29% less 89% less.

Annual Sierra reservoir

inflow 12% more 30% less .

* Scenarios are based on whether policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are instituted (“lower emissions”) or not (“higher emissions”).

Note: Temperatures are in degrees Fahrenheit.

Source: National Academy of Sciences