It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report Describes Systematic White House Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science.

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Papillion
The lobsters are indeed in the pot.


True.

Good to hear Canada made this important change.

............

To previous post, they appear to be attempting to distance themselves, heh. Just two words:

"Vulnerability: science"

There are other documents around which shows the methods they have been using, can't recall where I read them though, I'll keep an eye out. They outlined the need to keep pushing 'uncertainty' and 'doubt', well-worn tactics used by the tobacco industry.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Melatonin, if you could find those papers, I would really appreciate it.

Let me know if I can help at all.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I am totally unsurprised by their findings. I believe the jury is still out on global warming however I don't think the jury is out on the administrations predilection for lying and falsifying data.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Well, after going back to do some review, the first sentence of the Republican party tells me where they were intending the paper to go:



An investigation that began as a bipartisan inquiry into the role of the Council on Environmental Quality in climate change policy has veered into a partisan diatribe against the Bush Administration


Sounds like they are trying to take an admittedly bipartisan study, and turn it into an attack by the Democrats.

Just my opinion of the very first sentence. Anyone have any opinions?

[edit on 12/12/2007 by bigbert81]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
Thanks.


OK, found it eventually. It is the Frank Luntz memo (an advisor to the republicans from a few years back),

www.luntzspeak.com...

Contains some crackin' lines, such as:


Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.


Most of the stuff has been pretty much settled for years now. But these people just keep spreading exaggerated doubt and uncertainty.


you need to be more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view


I think Inhofe took this to heart, even as far as parading Crichton about, well he's a sci-fi expert, I see people quoting him and his silly book a lot.

There are other documents from years back showing how big tobacco played the same game. Ignore the solid stuff, spread the FUD. When no longer justified, move to another position, spread FUD. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It's the sun!
It's cosmic rays!
It's a cycle!
It's magic!
Models are wrong!
Hockey stick!
NASA temp data!
Urban heating!
Al Gore's fat!
It's warming, but we can't do anything!
Tax! Tax!
Ice-age lag!
Mars is warming!
It's cold outside, look!
etc etc ad nauseum

[edit on 12-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Hmmm, good information.

Thanks for finding that.

[edit on 12/12/2007 by bigbert81]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Maybe because Global Warming is over hyped and they're actually correcting it? I personally think the IPCC was set up to say what the Governments want to hear.

Why?

I watched a documentary last night called "Earth". In that they were talking about the oceans of the world, and the so-called ocean "conveyor belt". During the program, they said there was world-wide archaeological evidence for the stopping of the "conveyor belt" some 250 million years ago (that's right folks - before humans walked the Earth). It is widly accepted that tis resulted in approximately 90% of all life on Earth being wiped out.

But guess what - it started again, and we have lots of life on Earth now, today.

So, the climatologists are there saying that CO2 is causing global warming, that we humans are to blame, and that as part of this effect, the "conveyor belt" is once again showing signs of slowing, and COULD stop if we don't cut down the amount of CO2 released by us humans.

PROBLEM: It already did stop 250 million years ago, AND RESTARTED. Obviously this is a natural event that occurs periodically. No human intervention required - IT IS NATURAL (unless there is evidence the creatures from 250 million years ago had cars?
).

Add to that the report from last week stating that CO2 is over-rated, and that the climate models are seriously flawed, and you have the greatest con to hit human kind in quite a while (if ever).

When you look at what is required to "tackle global warming", it all involves MONEY. The governments of the world aren't asking people to plant trees, grow their own food or anything that would actually help - they're asking us to pay TAXES to combat global warming instead.

One British or European scientist recently said that it is no good planting trees in the UK or Europe as they wouldn't have the same effect to reduce global warming (source unknown - BBC I think).

Hmmm - care to tell me why the trees we plant are different form the trees planted in South America then??? Do ours breathe oxygen and theirs not?
CO2 is CO2 where ever it is, and trees are trees where-ever they are. They have to help reduce CO2 by definition.

The real reason they don't plant trees here is because it costs MONEY to do so. The same money they're raking in in "green taxes" would need to be spent to plant trees in the UK and the rest of Europe, which doesn't mean more money for the governments of the world. It would also be too practical to do something like that.


Look at carbon trading schemes. More MONEY, but no real action (like planting trees maybe?).

They talk about our countries trading carbon offsets with the likes of India or Ethiopia, on the flawed basis that they "don't need theirs" and using false targets THEY set up! This means that our industries can continue doing what they're doing for little expense, and buy offsets from countries that are claimed to not use them, thus making our industries appear green, without having to actually do anything.

Anyone spot the trend here yet? MONEY. If they really cared, they'd plant more trees, instead of cutting them all down. They would actually do something useful, instead of jetting around the world holding climate talks and not reaching any agreements (how much CO2 is that creating?).

The whole thing is baloney. "Global Warming" is a natural process. We can't stop it, we can't reverse it - nature is bigger than us. This is just propaganda to get the masses to pay more taxes.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
BIGBERT81


Thanks for the find. 28 pages, well I read a bit and scanned a little more and it is no wonder nothing gets done on the hill. Was this suppose to be a non partisan report ? I think not. The rebuttle sounds like he said, she said, bickering amonst children. You took this out of context, that's not what we meant. This is how you slow down, corrupt and render irrelevant anything. More of the same from either party but classic Bush and company.

This issue will continue to be blurred by this administration. That you can count on. However the facts and there reprocusions to us all will continue to march forward. This I think we can also count on.

LGF.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Papillion
 


My thoughts exactly.

It kind of does sound like children arguing. I'm very interested to see what becomes of this. Even though the Republican side brings forth more evidence to look at, some of the numbers and quotes cited in the House report are disturbing to say the least.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


The problem with your logic about trees is that trees near the equator(Tropical,sub-tropical regions) do convert more CO2 than trees that are planted in regions that have significant changes between seasons. In colder climates there's no leaves on the trees during that time(green leaves=chlorophyl: chlorophyl converts CO2 to O2). See what I'm getting at.

As to the rebutal from the Reptiles, I mean Republicans. What did you think it was going to say? The Republicans like to think they're coated with teflon or something and everything is going to slide off of them. So, of course they were going to say it's another Democrat witch-hunt.

I forget who said this(I may even be making up): "A true measure of a persons character, is they're ability to admit they are wrong". Has Bush & Co. ever really made actual admissions of errors to the public? The only one's I've ever seen were PR stunts to quiet down stories. I don't think that the Whitehouse even thinks that they are making mistakes.

The Whitehouse and Republicans(Democrats for that matter too) would have been great street hustlers. They are the masters of the shell game and have hustled the American people out of their wealth(unless you're in the top 1%), security, liberties and most of all pride.

How many Americans would be proud to say they are "American" while travelling abroad? For those of you that do, you've got a lot of courage. I do really hope our neighbors to the South get things straightened down there. I do really think of you guys as neighbors and used to love travelling to the states for my holidays(I truly love parts of your country and will return someday). However, since 9/11 and the start of facism I've limited my travel since I'm tired of being treated like a criminal everytime I cross the border. The way foreigners are now being treated during travel to the US is attrocious. I think if Homeland Security/NAZI SS gets it's way and requires all foreign travellers to produce all ten fingerprints and all the other BS that comes with it will kill your tourism business and further ISOLATE YOU from the rest of the world.

If Canada got that bad or worse, I bet you'd hear a lot of Canadians wishing to implement that little known clause that we have that allows the Queen to abolish our government with the consent of the Canadian people and hold the government in trust until a new government is formed. Hopefully it will never come to that.

Power to the people

As V says in V for Vendetta "The people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of it's people". And your government is afraid of what you can do to they're twisted view of the world and the Country. Why do you think they've been systematically stripping you of the powers your fore-fathers gave you to protect you against a renegade government.

Don't ever forget that the people have the power and should use that power to get a government that works for them, not for special interests that get them elected. If I could suggest a simple start would be public funding only for campaigns, no other funding should be allowed. Then they owe you for giving them the money to run, not some special interest.


PS. I think this is the longest post I've ever written.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81

Report Describes Systematic White House Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science. Point FOR Global Warming


oversight.house.gov

The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports.
(visit the link for the full news article)

-------------------------
Shortened title to fit



[edit on 11/12/07 by masqua]

They didn't did they. Well I never tch tch, I would never have guessed.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DEEZNUTZ
 


Wow, that is a long post. Really good one too, I gave you a gold star.

As far as admitting you're wrong, you can just forget that though. Politics work a bit differently, and if a Politician admits that, then their credibility is shot and their sources are looked down upon.

I do LOVE that V quote, it's one everyone should remember over and over again, I do, so I'm glad you posted it.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
So now I wonder what people are using to base their arguments for Global Warming on?

What's funny is there are still arguments going on about Global Warming being bs, and the people saying it are using the studies that've come out.

I'd say this report does a pretty good job of discrediting those.

So what exactly are the ANTI-Global Warming people going off of?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
So now I wonder what people are using to base their arguments for Global Warming on?

What's funny is there are still arguments going on about Global Warming being bs, and the people saying it are using the studies that've come out.

I'd say this report does a pretty good job of discrediting those.

So what exactly are the ANTI-Global Warming people going off of?


Here's a place for you to begin if you have an open mind and really want to understand both sides of the issue:

www.ecoworld.com...

Wall Street Journal

[edit on 12/14/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
More reading for those who haven't totally fallen for the global warming conspiracy, and have an open mind:

Ely News

Scitizen

[edit on 12/17/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
More reading for those who haven't totally fallen for the global warming conspiracy, and have an open mind:

Ely News


OK, firstly, the reporter is wrong about Tim Balls bio, he didn't teach for 28 years.

bio

So, he was only at Winnipeg between 1971 and 1996, and even then he wasn't teaching always during that period. His PhD was actually in geography, but with a focus on climatology.

And the interview is just more Ball's talking balls. The usual canards - lag, 1998, solar, etc. I'm sure you know my science-based responses by now



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Say what you want, here are three noteworthy climate scientists who disagree with the mainstream on global warming. There are dozens (at least) more. Attack the science, not the man.

I understand that the emissions agreed to by those nations going with the Kyoto treaty have not been met, or even close to met. What now? Raise taxes even higher?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Say what you want, here are three noteworthy climate scientists who disagree with the mainstream on global warming. There are dozens (at least) more. Attack the science, not the man.


I didn't, I corrected the misleading bio in the report.


I understand that the emissions agreed to by those nations going with the Kyoto treaty have not been met, or even close to met. What now? Raise taxes even higher?


I'm not sure it's due to taxes, just poor response to the guidelines. Kyoto was never going to be sufficient anyway.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
60 mins. has just had a story on this White House manipulation. Some of the changes made are absolutely ridiculous.

Apparently the changes to these documents have been being made by a lawyer, and NOT a scientist.

You really, really can't trust everything you hear anymore.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
How does this story add a logical 'point' towards CO2 being the primary cause of global warming? That's a very small scope of thought.

I don't even want to address these issues unless people can actually approach the discussion with the proper premise.

The concept in which CO2 is the primary source for Global Warming is refutted in consideration of the obvious agenda put forth by global powers. There's no denying that the global agenda is CO2 and it's also difficult to deny this financial agenda will push itself as far as it can go.

With that in consideration, what relavence is that of a subordinate group, such as the Bush administration, manipulating (SEEMINGLY BTW) the idea towards a seemingly seperate agenda?

We know that global powers tend to stay in power. Not only is that logical but pretty factual if that's an area you want to research. The Bush administration is a smaller faction intended, this is of the most importance, to maintain an image. Also, this faction has it's own finacial ties/parnters/streams of interest. If this smaller group is working to push the greaters agenda, while maintaining it's own/different image and the accompaning characteristics and actions, it would be obvious that it wouldn't completely coincide with the superior's actions. To demand that in an argument of truth is clearly ridiculous. Things aren't that simple and the Bush Administration is a short-term agenda based group working for an extremely long-term agenda based group...they will not have the exact same functions and ideas; it would be pretty useless and essentially go against the idealogy of a shadow government/power.



[edit on 28-1-2008 by 1nelove]




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join