White House Fires Back at Media on Timing of Climate Report

businessandmedia.org ^ | June 3, 2008 | Jeff Poor

[Rufus2007]

After the Bush administration released a report warning of the potential dangers of global warming, you would think the media, which propagate much of the modern alarmism over climate, would be thrilled.

That wasn’t the case. The May 29 ABC “World News” used the release of the report as an opportunity to indict the Bush administration for conspiring to hide science about global warming.

“For the first time, the Bush administration is conceding what most scientists have said for years – that global warming is having an impact on just about every aspect of the way we live,” ABC “World News” anchor Charles Gibson said. “The government report was mandated by an act of Congress, but the White House has fought its release since 2004 and released it now only because a federal judge ordered it.”

[Rufus2007]

Why does this global warming stuff come off as completely conspiratorial by the media?

[Ditto]

Why does this global warming stuff come off as completely conspiratorial by the media?

Because it is. The MSM works hand in hand with the DNC and the Enviro hucksters in putting the propaganda together and timing it for maximum exposure.

It's all a PR program designed to increase government power.

[edcoil]

What is this White House and who is the Bush Administration?

[ETL]

The May 29 ABC “World News” used the release of the report as an opportunity to indict the Bush administration for conspiring to hide science about global warming.

Here's some science that isn't getting out...

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation periods. Now look very carefully at this relationship between temps and CO2 levels and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the graph indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000 year period actually lagged behind temperature increases ...by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these 4 past glaciations. Yet Gore dishonestly and continually claims otherwise.-ETL

_______________________________________________________________

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present.":
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

_______________________________________________________________

FWD:

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

_______________________________________________________________

FWD:

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[ETL]

The May 29 ABC “World News” used the release of the report as an opportunity to indict the Bush administration for conspiring to hide science about global warming.

Here's some more science not getting out...

If you look at the chart below, you will see that sunspot activity (during solar maxes--the individual peaks) has been relatively high since about 1900 and almost non-existent for the period between about 1625 and 1725. This period is known as the Maunder (sunspot) Minimum or "Little Ice Age".

From BBC News [yr: 2004]:
"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."..."In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

It's really hard to imagine how this little ball of fire could have any impact on our climate at all.

But the main arguments being made for a solar-climate connection is not so much to do with the heat of the Sun but rather with its magnetic cycles. When the Sun is more magnetically active (typically around the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle --we are a few yrs away at the moment), the Sun's magnetic field is better able to deflect away incoming galactic cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles coming from outside the solar system). The GCRs are thought to help in the formation of low-level cumulus clouds -the type of clouds that BLOCK sunlight and help cool the Earth. So when the Sun's MF is acting up (not like now), less GCRs reach the Earth's atmosphere, less low level sunlight-blocking clouds form, and more sunlight gets through to warm the Earth's surface...naturally. Clouds are basically made up of tiny water droplets. When minute particles in the atmosphere become ionized by incoming GCRs they become very 'attractive' to water molecules, in a purely chemical sense of the word.-Eye On The Left

____________________________________________________

There's a relatively new book out on the subject titled The Chilling Stars. It's written by one of the top scientists advancing the theory (Henrik Svensmark).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/books/t/1840468157-the_chilling_stars_the_new_theory_of_climate_change.htm

And here is the website for the place where he does his research:
2008: "The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate

100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles:
ScienceDaily (Jun. 7, 2002) HANOVER, N.H.
Thanks to new calculations by a Dartmouth geochemist, scientists are now looking at the earth's climate history in a new light. Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, examined existing sets of geophysical data and noticed something remarkable: the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. This research helps scientists understand past climate trends and prepare for future ones.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm

[CutePuppy]

Q: After almost 8 years of this administration and 4 years of George H.W. Bush administration and some years in power in Congress, why do [some] Republicans still think that playing nice and giving in to the media / Democrats agenda (taxes, spending, crisis du-jour, social issues) will accrue to them an iota of good will instead of more attacks and assertion that they have given in to the "will of the people" and that "Democrats were right all along which now Republicans finally recognized it" which sets them up for other battles on other issues?

A: Stupid [Party] does as Stupid [Party] is.

[massgopguy]

So how much warmer does the Earth have to get before it reaches its correct temperature?

[samtheman]

“For the first time, the Bush administration is conceding what most scientists have said for years – that global warming is having an impact on just about every aspect of the way we live,”

This is TOTALLY Bush's fault and illustrates one of the greatest weaknesses of his administration.

Did he and his lunkhead "advisors" really think the leftist media would APPLAUD when the president scraped and bowed before the great behemoth god of global warming?

Did they really think that such ritualistic "concessions" would actually grant them any dispensations from the Church of the Global Big Lie?

What idiots to pander to those leftists.

What gullible sucker idiots.

Today I am NOT proud of President George W. Bush.

[Tarpon]

AGW == Tax and spend. Democrats think they have convinced people to pay more in taxes so they can pretend to control the weather.

Democrats == Raise taxes, fund socialism and gun control.

Up to you to figure out why gun control is such a key piece of Democrat dogma.

[SERKIT]

My Energy Manifesto:

* Cease all ethanol production. It takes away from food production and the unintended consequence is higher food costs. As diesel prices go up, the cost of farming tips the balance of cost to make ethanol a bad idea. Just say "no" to ethanol! Even Jimmy Carter says that diverting farm production from food to fuel is dumb – even HE gets it.

* Immediately create only ONE "blend" of gasoline and cease regional "boutique" blends which are stupid, costly, and meaningless. Even if this is the "cleanest" blend, just make it ONE and be done with it. Trucking custom blends around the country is wasteful.

* Lift the restrictions in order to drill for oil in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and other sites in the CONUS as a matter of national security.

* Encourage the petro industry to construct state-of-the-art refineries and/or retrofit current and dormant ones and crank up production for our newly-accessed oil in the CONUS.

* Make all “carbon credit” scams unlawful. Discrediting Algore should have been a slam-dunk a long time ago. Stop electing Reps who buy into the Global Warming / Global Cooling / Climate Change Hoax. CO2 is not our enemy!

* Construct SEVERAL, regional Pebble-Bed Modular Reactors (or other similar modern designs) that are not considered "breeders", are rechargeable, and cleaner than any current nuclear generator design. Breeders are OK, but PBMR's are better. NO SOMETHING NUCLEAR to resolve energy problems.

* Use the residual heat from the reactors above to process motor fuel from coal and/or shale. Even though Clinton "stole" some of the best coal reserves, we still have a lot to use.

* Become independent enough to make the cartels (i.e. OPEC) inconsequential.

* Convince local taxing bodies to lift or cap the sales tax on gasoline so that as gas prices go up, the local tax collectors don’t see a windfall revenue jump at the expense of the consumer. The Federal government could compel the states (and locals) to cap the fuel taxes.

If you squint real hard, and read between the lines, the ‘manifesto’ will require the dismissal of all RINOs and LibDems and the election of some clear-minded conservatives to even consider any of the above.

[Cicero]

Sometimes Bush can be an absolute idiot. Did he expect to get any credit for jumping on board the moonbat bandwagon? Did he ever get any credit for doing it anytime in the past 8 years?

Of course not. They’ll just take it and run, with a curse for Bush in the bargain. That has been the invariable pattern ever since January 2000. And Bush never learns.

[WOSG]

PING for great ideas and further AGW discussion.

[CutePuppy]

Depends on the definition of what "correct" is on any given day, but right now we seem to be cooling which doesn't make this puppy happy (freezing my tail off).

[TNCMAXQ]

They should have known the timing on this would invite all kinds of vicious comments from the “news” media and intelligentsia.

I attended the International Space Development Conference in DC this past weekend. It was remarkable to hear many qualified scientists, not all of them conservatives, say global warming either is not caused by humans, or cannot be reversed by humans even if we did create it, and is not necessarily a bad thing even if it does exist! I was so glad to hear it said. Yet these opinions often are ignored.

[UCANSEE2]

“So how much warmer does the Earth have to get before it reaches its correct temperature?”

---

Dear U.N. IPCC,

I am happy with the temperature today. Also it rained yesterday, but isn’t raining today. Please make it stay the same forever. Thank you.
(P.S. I asked my neighbors, and they like the temperature here today as well. So please make it a law that it can’t change)

[CRBDeuce]

bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect

bears repeating...often!

[ArchAngel1983]

It is amusing in a pathetic way how they think they can control such a dynamic process as global climate.

[stockpirate]

Democrats == Raise taxes, fund socialism and gun control.
Republicans == Raise taxes, fund socialism

[Yo-Yo]

This dovetails with yesterday's report by the NASA Inspector General's finding that political appointees in the Press Office distorted Global Warming reports.

[samtheman]

Freemon Dyson, one of the best scientists alive today, is in the “not necessarily a bad thing” camp.

He goes even further, saying that it is a good thing. He predicts a warming earth will bring back a “wet Sahara” and that a “wet Sahara” will be a great boon to mankind.