White House edits global warming report

AP ^ | Thursday, June 19, 2003

[presidio9]

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.

[cinFLA]

What the AP reported was the rumblings of some leftover Clinton EPA guys that haven't realized that times have changed.

[grania]

The solution is simple. They should just release both reports.

[ancient_geezer]

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.

[nuconvert]

Thank you

[taxed2death]

Sorry about the mis-spell. Do a search on FR.....GWB said so about a month ago.

[Number_Cruncher]

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.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

[RightWhale]

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.

[presidio9]

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

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

[A_perfect_lady]

"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.

[dufekin]

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?

[A_perfect_lady]

BOOKMARK BUMP

[alwaysconservative]

Bumped and bookmarked! Thanks!