New Bush Climate Change Study

[Timber Loftis]

Bush has hit the reset button on all climate change research to date. Ignorant to the fact that literally thousands of tons of research studies have been done, he has decided we'll take the next decade to see if a problem exists before we try to do anything.

Problem is, with climate change some changes can possibly be a "switch" rather than a "dial." A "dial" is that the aggregate temperature would get increasingly higher and that weather patterns would get increasingly radical. A "switch" is that a few degrees in temperature change of the Atlantic Oceans would stop or change the circulation pattern of the Atlantic waters (clockwise, in case you don't know) a throw entire weather patterns across the whole world into an entirely different pattern. A lot of our world depends on these patterns. It's not so easy to suddenly relocate an entire agricultural entity when the favorable climatic patterns suddenly hop to a different place on the planet. Image, the French wine regions (heavily weather-dictated) suddenly end up Portugal, Albania, and Nebraska.

I think our 1.7billion tax dollars could be better used putting clean coal power facilities in China, Korea, and India like they've begged us to for years rather than re-hashing studies that government grants have already paid for these last 10 years. (I mention these nations because it would be the biggest bang-for-the-buck as far as air cleaner per dollar).

Okay, OpEd over. Today's NY Times. I don't have time to find the analogous article in a less-liberal news rag for you nay-sayers, but NY Times is pretty reliable.

Experts Fault Bush's Proposal to Examine Climate Change
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

A panel of experts has strongly criticized the Bush administration's proposed research plan on the risks of global warming, saying that it "lacks most of the elements of a strategic plan" and that its goals cannot be achieved without far more money than the White House has sought for climate research.

The 17 experts, in a report issued yesterday, said that without substantial changes, the administration's plan would be unlikely to accomplish the aim laid out by President Bush in several speeches: to help decision makers and the public determine how serious the problem is so that they can make clear choices about how to deal with it.

The president has said that more research is needed before the administration can even consider mandatory restrictions on heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The expert panel, convened by the National Academy of Sciences at the administration's request, said some of the plan's proposals for new research seemed to rehash questions that had already been largely settled.

It also found that the plan listed dozens of disparate research goals without setting priorities — a particularly important failing, it said, inasmuch as the plan is intended to integrate about $1.7 billion a year in climate research now being conducted by more than a dozen agencies.

The plan, the experts concluded, lacks "a guiding vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress, an assessment of whether existing programs are capable of meeting these goals, explicit prioritization and a management plan."

Senior administration officials said they welcomed the panel's critique of the draft plan, and added that the final plan, scheduled for release in April, would most likely reflect some of the suggestions.

"It may sound like `Oh, yes, please hit me again,' " said Dr. James R. Mahoney, an assistant secretary of commerce who is director of the federal Climate Change Science Program. But, he added, "I absolutely welcome their comments, even though it may sound like they're fairly harsh."

The administration's plan calls for a vast array of work through the rest of the decade on goals like improving computer simulations of climate shifts, integrating measurements of global change and clarifying regional effects of warming.

The panel brought together to critique the plan was drawn from the academic world, businesses including Honeywell and BP, and a private environmental organization. (The names of its members, along with the text of the report, are online at www.nas.edu.)

The experts credited the administration for undertaking the effort in the first place. A broad government plan for climate research is required under a 1990 law, the Global Change Research Act, but was never completed during the administration of Mr. Bush's father or in the Clinton administration. As a result, many experts say, climate research has suffered.

For example, American efforts to refine advanced computer models used to project the effects of rising greenhouse-gas concentrations have fallen behind those overseas, partly because of a lack of coordination.

A unified approach is necessary, the new report concluded. But while the administration's plan is "an important first step," the experts said, it needs many changes, and more money.

"They get an A for effort," said one panel member, Dr. Diane M. McKnight, a professor of engineering at the University of Colorado. Another author, Dr. Michael J. Prather, an earth sciences expert at the University of California at Irvine, joined in academic metaphor: "This is the student paper that gets sent back two-thirds of the way through the term with red marks all over it. It doesn't have a grade yet."

A particular concern among some on the panel was the plan's proposed focus on scientific questions that many experts say have been resolved.

"In some areas, it's as if these people were not cognizant of the existing science," said one member, Dr. William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "Stuff that would have been cutting edge in 1980 is listed as a priority for the future."

For example, the report said, far more is already known about human activity's contribution to global warming than is suggested by the administration's plan, which, the panel said, expresses too much uncertainty about the question.

As for the report's assessment that the plan is more ambitious than the current government financing of $1.7 billion for climate research can support, Dr. Mahoney, of the Commerce Department, acknowledged that the budget was not likely to grow significantly this year or next, but noted that most other government programs were experiencing significant cuts.

In concluding that a flat budget would not be enough, the report said the goals could be accomplished only with "greatly increased" spending or sharp cutbacks in other government research money to allow the savings to flow to climate studies.

The panel was convened by the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, which advises the government on scientific and technical matters.

Its report, said lawmakers who have long criticized the administration's climate policies, supports their contention that the goal of more research is really an excuse for more delay. "Global climate change affects every aspect of our daily lives, from land and water resources to agriculture and human health," said Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is seeking his party's nomination to run against Mr. Bush next year. He said the findings "should be a wake-up call for this administration."

Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, defended the plan, saying it followed "a prudent course by trying to strengthen our limited understanding of the underlying causes and impacts of climate change."

Since the draft research plan was issued in November, more than 270 written comments have been received, from sources as varied as environmental groups and companies whose business could be harmed by limits on emissions.

Dr. Mahoney said the initial plan had always been considered a rough draft. "It's like getting a ship into motion," he said. "Let's make a solid start, and then we've got something to critique and build on."

And?

I take it that you believe that you have a better plan
If you run for president, I will vote for you [img]smile.gif[/img]

[quietman1920]

I merely take umbrage that you'd call The N.Y. Times a 'liberal news-rag'. The Gray Lady is read daily by the people who Run this country; The Wallstreet Journal is only read by people who THINK they run it...

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by MagiK: And? I take it that you believe that you have a better plan If you run for president, I will vote for you [img]smile.gif[/img]

I don´t see what that has to do with this MagiK. Isn´t it Timber´s right as well as obligation to critizise and/or question his government? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

A better plan IMO would be to finally stop investigating and do something about the problem. This is of course not directed towards the US governmene, rather to every politician on Earth as well as several major companies. We will never see a hydrogen based engine on cars since the major car companies would lose money on that etc. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Willow you misjudged me [img]smile.gif[/img] My post was sincere [img]smile.gif[/img] I was trying to elicit from TL what his thoughts were, since he forgot to post them [img]smile.gif[/img]

I would also vote for him if he ran [img]smile.gif[/img] (as an independant..I can't vote for a democrat )

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by MagiK: Willow you misjudged me [img]smile.gif[/img] My post was sincere [img]smile.gif[/img] I was trying to elicit from TL what his thoughts were, since he forgot to post them [img]smile.gif[/img] I would also vote for him if he ran [img]smile.gif[/img] (as an independant..I can't vote for a democrat )

Then I would like to beg for forgiveness MagiK. I misunderstood your words and I am sorry if they caused you any distress. But isn´t the first two paragraphs Timber´s thought on this topic? [img]graemlins/confused2.gif[/img] If they are not his words I have misunderstood those as well I guess. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-26-2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Bush has hit the reset button on all climate change research to date. Ignorant to the fact that literally thousands of tons of research studies have been done, he has decided we'll take the next decade to see if a problem exists before we try to do anything.

This is what really draws my ire.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Djinn, sorry to draw your ire, but read the article. I think it's a fair representation. Except perhaps for the word "ignorant." If you like I'll replace it with "because he's owned by the special interest groups that bankroll Republican elections."

Quietman, the NY Times is LIBERAL. It's also the absolute best newspaper on the planet and the only one I read every day. I like it a lot, but all voices have an agenda, especially the media. Someone owns the rag. That someone has objectives. Whether intended or not, such objectives seep into the newspaper's character. Fact of life. If you want a list of (IMHO) other good papers, see: Miami Herald, Washington Post, WSJ, and some days the Boston Globe. Note that all Chicago and West Coast newspapers (again, IMHO) SUCK. But, two or three megacompanies own 90% of all the newspapers and news magazines, so it really doesn't matter does it?

MagiK, as for my suggestion, it would be to get delegates together at this year's UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - of which Kyoto is just one protocol) meeting and lock the door until they come out with defined mechanisms to make some key climate change activities happen, specifically: Technology Transfers, measurement of greenhouse gases (GHG's), accounting for land use change and forestry inputs (LUCFs), real fines for GHG emissions above the already-agreed to (but IGNORED) limits, and joint projects between the Nations with GHG limits and those without whereby credits can be gained for assisting other nations in gaining clean technology.

(As a funny note, the only reason Kyoto got passed was a strong-willed meeting chair actually kept delegates up all night in their working group rooms until 7-8 a.m. making them hammer out agreements. You'd be surprised how willing-to-agree someone becomes when they think they'll miss their flight.)

Then I'd take Bush's words promoting a Hydrogen car from his State of the Union and actually make it happen.

I'd still keep studying of course. If we find out the limits are too low at a later date, we can change them. Never hurts to use the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.

Oh, to dream, to dream.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, in the spirit of accurate representation, I have stolen a link from the "British Driving" thread. As one can expect from a Driver's Association, this article completely argues against climate change, Kyoto, and even alternative energy.

I printed it out and it's about 29 pages, so for those of you who want to trash climate change, here's your source. But, if you don't laugh when you read that Spain will lose 1 million jobs if Kyoto is implemented or that alternative energy won't be viable until fusion reactors come on-line, then you've bought all of the industry brain-washing you're supposed to.

http://www.abd.org.uk/index.htm

[WillowIX]

Actually I read an article about a car driven by compressed air. Sounded totally futuristic but very cool. I´ll see if I can dig that up.

Regarding your article I believe the companies don´t worry that much about people losing their jobs. Can you spell "lower income"? I guess I´m not brain washed yet huh? LOL