Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House edits global warming report
AP ^ | Thursday, June 19, 2003

Posted on 06/20/2003 1:56:16 PM PDT by presidio9

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:42 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The White House directed a major rewrite of an assessment of climate change, removing references to health and environmental risks posed by rising global temperatures, according to internal draft documents made public Thursday.

Several Senate Democrats, including some running for president, accused the White House of "doctoring" the Environmental Protection Agency report to suit President Bush's skeptical views on global warming.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: epa; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax

1 posted on 06/20/2003 1:56:16 PM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
So the people who edit information to serve political purposes for a living are criticizing others for a similar perceived slight?
2 posted on 06/20/2003 1:57:58 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
And EPA isn't a political animal ?
3 posted on 06/20/2003 2:00:42 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Well, well. We're not only getting rid of Christie Todd-Whitman (long overdue), we're also going to correct/ammend the junk science. Good good good.
4 posted on 06/20/2003 2:02:08 PM PDT by EggsAckley ( "Aspire to Mediocracy"..........new motto for publik skools....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Global warming is true regardless of whether or not there is evidence."
5 posted on 06/20/2003 2:02:09 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
If the AP report characterizes this accurately, this was a dumb move by the White House.

Of course, that's a big "if."

6 posted on 06/20/2003 2:02:44 PM PDT by The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Can we edit out the words "rain forest" and insert the words "unkempt jungles"?
7 posted on 06/20/2003 2:05:51 PM PDT by theDentist (So. This is Virginia.... where are all the virgins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; *Global Warming Hoax; Stand Watch Listen; RightWhale; Free the USA; Carry_Okie; ...
Global Warming Hoax :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Global Warming Hoax , click below:
  click here >>> Global Warming Hoax <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



8 posted on 06/20/2003 2:06:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Iran Mullahs will feel the heat from our Iraq victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
"Global warming is true regardless of whether or not there is evidence."

Riiiight.

Did I ever tell you about the time I invented the internet?

9 posted on 06/20/2003 2:18:12 PM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
It used to known as the "global warming theory" The "theory" somehow was dropped a couple years ago. Wonder how that happened, since there's still serious debate amongst scientist whether there's anything going on
that hasn't gone on for thousands for years?
10 posted on 06/20/2003 2:18:29 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Editing has cleaned up the environment,which is all it ever needed in the first place!
11 posted on 06/20/2003 2:19:42 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
By the way, was that a joke?
12 posted on 06/20/2003 2:20:56 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change,"

There is no scientific consensus, although there is a political consensus. Smogbag ecotopists are riding this bangtail way too hard; she's not going to finish the race.

13 posted on 06/20/2003 2:25:57 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It was funny when the greenhouse gases actually helping to produce plantlife in the deserts. The gases were actually helping the enviroment instead of hurting it!
14 posted on 06/20/2003 2:47:52 PM PDT by BushCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Kinda like thier new policy on not releasing any unemployment information unless it's good news.

Peculiar.
15 posted on 06/20/2003 2:48:15 PM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death
like thier new policy on not releasing any unemployment information unless it's good news

Who is 'thier'? What policy? Unemployment reports are being issued by all depts right on schedule as always.

16 posted on 06/20/2003 2:54:17 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Why is everybody getting so uptight about this REPORT?? It's not a legal document - it's just a report. We edited the ENVIRONMENTAL WHACKO report and make it more user friendly.
17 posted on 06/20/2003 3:02:12 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I was being sarcastic. I forgot the < /sarcasm > tag.
18 posted on 06/20/2003 3:14:56 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
>>The changes initially were reported in Thursday's New York Times. <<

So it must be true then...
19 posted on 06/20/2003 3:18:13 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
>>EPA spokesman Joe Martyak said the agency "didn't want to hold up the rest of the report" because of the disagreement over the climate language and because there remains no clear "consensus on the science and conclusions" on global warming. <<

That alone justifies the deletion.
20 posted on 06/20/2003 3:19:24 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
What the AP reported was the rumblings of some leftover Clinton EPA guys that haven't realized that times have changed.
21 posted on 06/20/2003 3:20:10 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
The solution is simple. They should just release both reports.
22 posted on 06/20/2003 3:23:07 PM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Mark VanPutten, president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the matter "provides disturbing evidence of the administration's readiness to reject or spin scientific findings on crucial environmental issues that do not suit the White House's political agenda."

Who's political agenda?

Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

 

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics  % of All Greenhouse Gases

% Natural

% Man-made

 Water vapor 95.000% 

 94.999%

0.001% 
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 

 3.502%

0.117% 
 Methane (CH4) 0.360% 

 0.294%

0.066% 
 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 

 0.903%

0.047% 
 Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 

 0.025%

0.047% 
 Total 100.00% 

 99.72

0.28% 

The reality is a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration over current levels, that the IPCC "story line" pretends, even if true, could not induce significant temperature change whatever its source.

Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?

"It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.

The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.

This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO2 (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The Global Climate [14]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m2, we get a similar value of 0.015 degC."

A Lukewarm Greenhouse
"
The average warming predicted by the six methods for a doubling of CO2, is only +0.2 degC."


 

Global Warming Score Card

Seems as though there is room for substantial doubt as to any negative effect human created CO2, Methane etc. may have on our Climate future.

At least these folks believe so:

Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Specifically declaring:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields.


23 posted on 06/20/2003 6:00:55 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Thank you
24 posted on 06/20/2003 7:36:48 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Sorry about the mis-spell. Do a search on FR.....GWB said so about a month ago.
25 posted on 06/21/2003 4:33:02 AM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The EPA report was edited before final approval and printing. Isn't that a normal procedure? Contrast that with the IPCC report of 1995 which was edited after final approval. The people objecting to the EPA editing were mum when the 1995 editing occurred. They got their way then, but today are unhappy they are not getting their way.
26 posted on 06/21/2003 11:38:37 AM PDT by Number_Cruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Let me get this straight. Removing biased and inaccurate information when it supports a liberal view is doctoring, while doing it when its supports a conservative view is editing. Okay. Got it.
27 posted on 06/21/2003 12:15:05 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death
Well, maybe so. But there are 50 fed gov't agencies and a ton of state agencies putting out such data, so much that a person could waste a Sunday afternoon every week reading it rather than going out to the park. The info isn't secret or withheld, although sometimes it is reported in formats that are less than simple to interpret. Controlled capitalism is working, even though there's always somebody that isn't particularly happy about things.
28 posted on 06/21/2003 4:24:49 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
I was being sarcastic. I forgot the < /sarcasm > tag.

So was I. I didn't really invent the internet. Al Gore did.

29 posted on 06/23/2003 7:51:19 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"It brings into question the ability and authority of the EPA ... to publish unbiased scientific reports,"

Let's see... so we are supposed to believe that left to their own devices, the Environmental PROTECTION Agency will not be at all biased. Okay. Got it. Yeah. Mm hmm.

30 posted on 06/23/2003 7:54:46 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Here in Pennsylvania, we've really been suffering with all drizzle and no sun. Cold too; must be global warming, after all, isn't everything?
31 posted on 06/23/2003 7:58:47 AM PDT by dufekin (Peace HAS COME AT LONG LAST to the tortured people of Iraq!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
BOOKMARK BUMP
32 posted on 06/23/2003 8:01:59 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Bumped and bookmarked! Thanks!
33 posted on 06/24/2003 5:32:12 AM PDT by alwaysconservative (This tag line is optional)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson