Rewriting The Science (on 60 mins)

[Ziroc]

The white house has had a onetime lobbyist for the oil industry editing the science data/statements from leading NASA scientists. Now a Lawyer--not another scientist. This is insane if true.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml

Watch the video to the right of the screen before posting.. I didn't see the entire show.. Did anyone here?

[Azred]

The White House has edited scientific data for years; this isn't simply a Bush phenomenon.

The problem with global warming is that for every scientist who produces a detailed study showing how quickly the average global temperature is rising and that disaster is imminent there will be another scientist with a detailed study shows that the current warming trend is part of the normal golbal climate cycle and that no danger is present.

In that regard, climatologists are much like economists.

What would the worst-case scenario be is global warming is past the point of no return? The food belts would shift, coastlines would change, the weather would be freaky, and in the meantime we would continue living life as normally as possible.

If it isn't global warmning, then some other global disaster will significantly negatively impact the population. Asteroid impact, supervolcano eruption, viral pandemic, etc.

[Ziroc]

No no, It has nothing to do with Bush. These people have been doing it, as you said, for decades.. Its a joke..

You can discuss the climate with involving politics. And that's is where I come from. Dem or Reb, it doesn't matter. We just need the truth [img]smile.gif[/img]
As I've said before. I am not political. I hate politics. Way to much BS for my taste. on all sides..

Who knows if it is man that is doing this, or it is cyclical. Either way, we need to have the truth.. Seeing Australia being hit by a Cat 5 for the first time in decades makes me shudder to think what OUR hurricane season is going to be like..

[ 03-20-2006, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

[pritchke]

What does Shell US say? Some oil companies say climate change is very real so they are investing time and energy in alternative energy sources as well as better fuels. The president of Shell Canada claims it is a very real threat, a global challenge and a business opportunity at the same time. So if some of the top executives of oil companies say it is real, and support Kyoto Accord there should be no reason for governments to be farting around and changeing data. They should be working on the problem with industry.

A speech that proves that not everyone in the oil industry wants to dispute climate change. It is a really good speech, and I will admit you may be hard pressed to find speeches from top executives like this.

http://www.shell.ca/static/ca-en/dow...h_sep27_05.pdf

I was just at Shell US site and they are not disputing climate change in there speeches either, I briefly skimmed through the Delivering Technology (Feb 7) speech.

Yes, I do fuel up with Shell mainly because they support SD and climate change inititives.

[ 03-21-2006, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Azred]

Even if we eventually find out definitively that the phenomenon we call "global warming" turns out to be normal and we aren't accelerating it, it is always wise to invest in alternative fuel research. If a cleaner alternative exists then develop it now so that your company has the edge over the next century. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

I fuel up with Shell because I support tanker spills off the coast of Alaska.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I fuel up with Shell because I support tanker spills off the coast of Alaska.

Well if you wish to support tanker spills that is your choice it is a bizarre reason however.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I fuel up with Shell because I support tanker spills off the coast of Alaska.

{editted for clarity}

[ 03-21-2006, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Timber Loftis]

[Nightwing]

What I found interesting in the 60 minutes report was that scientific reports were being altered not by other scientist with other views, but by politicians with no formal understanding of the facts presented. They just ommitted or changed wording to make the reports look better than they were.