You May be Brainwashed by Corporate Media if You:

[saltydawg]

Yeah, you were just hoping. I just bought a TECH baseball cap and joined as a Booster of CHAMPS. So I figure I have just as much right to post BS here as you do.

Anyway, it is a FACT that Bush people hired Philip Cooney as chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. And that it is also FACT he significantly changed scientific reports to make it look like global warming was not something to be concerned about. It is also FACT that after he was exposed he quit his job (admission of guilt?). It is also FACT that he was quickly hired by EXXON.

Like to continue but I'm making some lasagna.

You guys denying any of this?

[markay714]

Like to continue but I'm making some lasagna.

Don't let us hold you up. I'll work on inventing a slopokewave oven for you - takes 5 hours instead of 5 minutes or something.....or 5 weeks to make your lasagna.

[Cal&Ken]

Yeah, you were just hoping. I just bought a TECH baseball cap and joined as a Booster of CHAMPS. So I figure I have just as much right to post BS here as you do.

.

That would not have been my word selection, but, you called it right about what you post here.

[arkansasbob]

Yeah, you were just hoping. I just bought a TECH baseball cap and joined as a Booster of CHAMPS. So I figure I have just as much right to post BS here as you do.

Anyway, it is a FACT that Bush people hired Philip Cooney as chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. And that it is also FACT he significantly changed scientific reports to make it look like global warming was not something to be concerned about. It is also FACT that after he was exposed he quit his job (admission of guilt?). It is also FACT that he was quickly hired by EXXON.

Like to continue but I'm making some lasagna.

i know it is somewhat confusing, salty, but adding the word "significant" does not significantly change a scientific report. especially when the report remains true to the FACTS. i would probably quit my job if i was being attacked like that, too. what does his hiring by exxon have to do with anything? the government (i.e. the epa) won't fund any environmental research that does not have the specific aim of proving man-made global warming. somebody has to fund the opposition, so why not the companies that have the biggest stake in it?


p.s. mmmmm, lasagna!

[sik-m-boi]

i heard that he left the white house FOR the job at exxon...this could be as simple as exxon offered him more money. but that's just what i heard on NPR today.

[Soonerdawg]

Gee, I was thinking the same thing about you.

Nanny, nanny boo boo. I know you are, but what am I.

I guess when you hit an agrument that moveon.org does not have a response to cut and paste your talking points, you resort to childish banter.

My turn.

You play ball like a girl.

[saltydawg]

Sensible energy policy.

http://www.gnet.org/news/newsdetail....28265&image1=2

[saltydawg]

That would not have been my word selection, but, you called it right about what you post here.

That's that I like about you C&K, you always have that one sentence comeback waiting for me.

[saltydawg]

From the Boston Globe
Bipartisan groups of lawmakers to press Senate on emissions
Tighter limits sought for greenhouse gases
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | June 14, 2005

WASHINGTON -- With concern over global warming mounting in the United States and abroad, three bipartisan groups of lawmakers plan this week to press the Senate to adopt beefed-up emissions controls, despite staunch White House resistance to them.

Last week, at a news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain -- who has been encouraging the Bush administration to more aggressively confront climate change -- President Bush said more information is needed before his administration can take further steps to address global warming. But several Republican senators are endorsing proposals that would limit the release of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that trap heat in the atmosphere and are produced by power plants and manufacturers.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has teamed up with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, to offer the proposal that is most popular with environmentalists. It would freeze carbon emissions at their 2010 levels by capping production and allowing manufacturers to trade cap room.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, met yesterday with other senators to discuss his plan for tax and loan incentives for companies that seek to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Pete V. Domenici, is considering whether to team up with a fellow New Mexican, Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, on another proposal that would cap emissions but allow companies to buy their way out if the cost of reducing emissions proves to be prohibitively high.

''We're thrilled at the interest being shown by Republicans at doing something that's achievable and doable," said Bill Wicker, a Bingaman spokesman.

The three separate proposals will be offered as amendments to the energy bill that is to be discussed in the Senate starting today.

The proposals vary considerably in the severity of actions they would require of greenhouse gas producers, and each would have to overcome fierce opposition from both the Bush administration and House leadership to become law. In April, the House passed its version of an energy bill, which does not address global warming.

Still, environmental groups say any vote to change federal policy on climate change would send a powerful message that lawmakers are ready to acknowledge and respond to global warming.

''The great thing about this debate is it's not going to be about 'It's happening' or 'It's not happening.' It's 'What should we do about it?' " said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. ''It does represent a very fundamental shift of the politics of global warming."

Bush has resisted mandatory caps on emissions, which are included in the McCain-Lieberman and Bingaman proposals. In 2001, Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, which would have forced American companies to begin limiting their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases this year. The Bush administration also came under fire last week for allegedly allowing a White House aide to edit government climate reports to downplay links between gas emissions and global warming.

Scott McClellan, a spokesman for the White House, yesterday sidestepped questions over whether emissions caps would lead the president to veto the energy bill, a sweeping piece of legislation that Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to approve. But McClellan made clear that the administration remains committed to incentives that encourage the private sector to find ways to produce lower amounts of the gases, and wants further research into the causes of climate change.

The last Senate attempt to curb greenhouse gas production was made in 2003, when a measure similar to that being offered again by McCain and Lieberman was defeated, 55 to 43. Since then, Democrats lost four seats in the 2004 elections.

Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, said he expects greater support for controlling global warming this year, because scientists have moved closer to settling the debate over whether greenhouse gases are affecting the environment. Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said former vice president Al Gore will be in Washington today and tomorrow to help Democrats rally support for addressing climate change.

Several Senate aides said the Bingaman proposal is the most likely to pass, because it attempts to craft a middle-of-the-road solution. It is modeled closely on recommendations made by the National Commission on Energy Policy last year.

Bingaman's amendment would mandate emissions controls starting in 2010, with a goal of returning the nation to the 2012 level of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. It would allow overproducing companies to purchase emissions credits from others who are under the cap. To control the price of those credits, it would also allow companies to pay the government $7 for every metric ton of carbon dioxide by which they exceed the cap.

[arkansasbob]

Sensible energy policy.

http://www.gnet.org/news/newsdetail....28265&image1=2

do you believe that calling it "sensible" somehow makes it so? what if i call it "bad for the american economy" or "capitulation to anti-industry pressure"?

[saltydawg]

do you believe that calling it "sensible" somehow makes it so? what if i call it "bad for the american economy" or "capitulation to anti-industry pressure"?

Bob, go ahead if you think that is the case. Seems to me that the US Senate and the White House are the last 2 places that don't want to realize the extent of the threat that global warming poses.

[arkansasbob]

Bob, go ahead if you think that is the case. Seems to me that the US Senate and the White House are the last 2 places that don't want to realize the extent of the threat that global warming poses.

at least somebody is basing their beliefs on evidence.

[saltydawg]

Global warming is fueling nastier storms, expert says
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Hurricanes have grown fiercer in recent decades, spurred by global warming, and even tougher storms are likely on the way, a researcher predicts.

NOAA satellite illustration shows Hurricane Emily and Tropical Storm Eugene on July 19.
NOAA via Getty Images
In his new study, ocean climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggests that the power of big ocean storms has increased and will continue to do so, even if their numbers stay the same.

The analysis, released online Monday by the journal Nature, confounds some past studies that had indicated that increasing average temperatures worldwide over this century — a United Nations climate panel has projected that temperatures will rise from 2 to 10 degrees worldwide by 2100 — would have little effect on hurricanes.

"The best way to put it is that storms are lasting longer at high intensity than they were 30 years ago," says Emanuel.

In an analysis of sea surface temperatures and storms since 1930, he found that a combined measure of duration and wind speeds among North Atlantic hurricanes and North Pacific cyclones has nearly doubled since the 1970s. "I was quite surprised by the magnitude of the increase," he says by e-mail.

Scientists had not correlated the frequency, intensity and duration of the storms until now, he says, but past reports have raised questions:

• Hurricane and cyclone reported durations have increased by roughly 60% since 1949.

• Average peak storm wind speeds have increased about 50% since the 1970s.

• Sea surface temperatures have swung upwards since 1975 at rates that exceed normal swings from regular El Niño or Atlantic cycles.

Cyclones and hurricanes do follow decades-long cycles of strengthening and weakening, Emanuel says. But the study effects are above and beyond the current cycle, which has seen stronger hurricanes in recent years.

The report serves as a warning about future global warming effects, says atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Dollar losses from storms rise with hurricane wind speeds, the study notes. And inland damage from flooding and heavy rains also results from more intense storms, Trenberth says.

"I think that this is very good science and a very important paper, but I don't think it settles every question," says National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hurricane expert Chris Landsea. He wants researchers to delve further back into past hurricane records to verify the trend.

"It's a bit of a surprise," he says, given that earlier studies had suggested a warming climate would lead to only small changes in storm wind speeds.

With more people living on coasts in more expensive housing, Landsea says, the study underlines the importance of five-day hurricane forecasts, better building codes and homeowners buying shutters and storm doors.

[arkansasbob]

Global warming is fueling nastier storms, expert says
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Hurricanes have grown fiercer in recent decades, spurred by global warming, and even tougher storms are likely on the way, a researcher predicts.

NOAA satellite illustration shows Hurricane Emily and Tropical Storm Eugene on July 19.
NOAA via Getty Images
In his new study, ocean climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggests that the power of big ocean storms has increased and will continue to do so, even if their numbers stay the same.

The analysis, released online Monday by the journal Nature, confounds some past studies that had indicated that increasing average temperatures worldwide over this century — a United Nations climate panel has projected that temperatures will rise from 2 to 10 degrees worldwide by 2100 — would have little effect on hurricanes.

"The best way to put it is that storms are lasting longer at high intensity than they were 30 years ago," says Emanuel.

In an analysis of sea surface temperatures and storms since 1930, he found that a combined measure of duration and wind speeds among North Atlantic hurricanes and North Pacific cyclones has nearly doubled since the 1970s. "I was quite surprised by the magnitude of the increase," he says by e-mail.

Scientists had not correlated the frequency, intensity and duration of the storms until now, he says, but past reports have raised questions:

• Hurricane and cyclone reported durations have increased by roughly 60% since 1949.

• Average peak storm wind speeds have increased about 50% since the 1970s.

• Sea surface temperatures have swung upwards since 1975 at rates that exceed normal swings from regular El Niño or Atlantic cycles.

Cyclones and hurricanes do follow decades-long cycles of strengthening and weakening, Emanuel says. But the study effects are above and beyond the current cycle, which has seen stronger hurricanes in recent years.

The report serves as a warning about future global warming effects, says atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Dollar losses from storms rise with hurricane wind speeds, the study notes. And inland damage from flooding and heavy rains also results from more intense storms, Trenberth says.

"I think that this is very good science and a very important paper, but I don't think it settles every question," says National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hurricane expert Chris Landsea. He wants researchers to delve further back into past hurricane records to verify the trend.

"It's a bit of a surprise," he says, given that earlier studies had suggested a warming climate would lead to only small changes in storm wind speeds.

With more people living on coasts in more expensive housing, Landsea says, the study underlines the importance of five-day hurricane forecasts, better building codes and homeowners buying shutters and storm doors.

so one study that contradicts earlier studies is better than the many it "confounds" because it serves to scare people about global warming. the statistics listed are rediculous. hurricanes cycle (very unpredictably) and two high points in that cycle were the 1930's and late 50's to early 60's. 1949 and 1970's were low points in that cycle. comparing what we have now in the high points to what we had then is deceptive at best. at that does not even take into account the changes in technology that have allowed us to more accurately monitor storms throughout their life. as for the statement about swings exceding normal swings, we have a very short history of tropical storms relative to the wavelength of the swings -- how does he know what "normal" is? then at the end, he reminds us again that this one study contradicts all previous studies.