Crappy Bush Government blocks hurricane report (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/26/hurricane.report.ap/index.html) The Bush administration has blocked the release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.

The possibility that warming conditions may cause storms to become stronger has generated debate among climate and weather experts, particularly in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. In the new case, Nature said weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- part of the Commerce Department -- in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report on the views of agency scientists about global warming and hurricanes.

Michael, so were are the hurricanes?

Michael, so were are the hurricanes? :bugeye:

It's not that there are more or less or more intense or less intense hurricanes. The fact is it is wrong of the Bush government to try and block the release of the current (as best as we now understand) scientific information.

You know what it reminds me of; sometimes officials in the Chinese government censor the information and news that the Chinese population has access to. As a matter of fact, they recently passed a new law that says they will do just that. Chinese officials think this is reasonable because they are better able to decide what best for the Chinese people.

Buffalo Roam, do you think this is good governmental practice?

We Americans typically like to point to the Chinese practice of information censorship as a good example of the diminished rights the Chinese people are living under in a Communistic autocratic styled government and then we bleat something about how they’d be better off in an OPEN and FREE Democracy society like ours (well used to be). Many Americans feel quite sorry for the Chinese people and probably think it would be scary to live in such a society where the government censors what information the people get.

Well hello – we’re living in it.

Buffalo Roam, I don’t know about you but I do not want to live in a country where the government will pick and choose what scientific information I am allowed to have access to in regards to my health and the environment I live within.

Fuck that.

Suppressing this scientific report is no different than the Chinese suppressing information about a chemical spill in a river that supplies water for people to drink. Perhaps 80% of the scientists think the spill will cause health problems but some scientists working for the government think it is a small spill and they can rightfully say that not all scientists agree with 100% certainty that the chemical spill will cause cancers in people. So the information is suppressed.

Then a day after someone leaks the info about the spill you ask: Where are the cancers?

That’s not the point. There may or may not be future cancers – but it’s my health and my environment and I have a right to know. It’s the fact the some bureaucrat that works for ME decided to suppress the information. THAT bureaucrat should be fired on the spot. Or in GW Bush’s case he should resign or be impeached.


Ask yourself: Why would the Bush government suppress this information?
Maybe it had something to do with their incompetent handling of hurricane Katrina?

Maybe you have forgotten Buffalo Roam but the government works for US. WE THE PEOPLE are their LEADERS not the other way around. Let me repeat, GW Bush is a SERVANT not a LEADER we do not have LEADERS we have SERVANTS.


Michael

It's not that there are more or less or more intense or less intense hurricanes. The fact is it is wrong of the Bush government to try and block the release of the current (as best as we now understand) scientific information.

Not only that, but it doesn't mean more hurricanes are gonna pop up or all hurricanes are gonna be category 4 or 5 ones, it just means hurricanes become stronger from our influence. A weak hurricane turns into a small hurricane, a small hurricane turns into a medium, a medium turns into a large, and a large turns into some bad shit, etc.

- N

So were are the stronger hurricanes? we seem to have a dearth of them this year.

So were are the stronger hurricanes? we seem to have a dearth of them this year.

Not all hurricanes originate from your asshole.

So were are the stronger hurricanes? we seem to have a dearth of them this year.This is how much sense you are making: My father has been smoking for 30 years and didn't get lung cancer therefore lets not release any health information about the dangers of smoking to the public AND LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE, BASED ON THIS DATA, WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.


The facts are this
1) The worlds leading climatologists agree that global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.

There is no discussion on this.
It may or it may not be true.
It is a scientifically observed phenomenon and therefore most likely represents reality.
That was not my point.

My point is this second fact:
2) The Bush administration tried to prevent the information from being released to the public. Attempting to block this report was based squarely on political motives because it highlights, or reminds Americans, of Bush’s inept handling of Hurricane Katrina.



My question is this: Do you Buffalo Roam support the Bush government’s policy of attempting to block the release of a scientific report related to health and the environment? Yes or No and why.


Michael

Still waiting for the scientific report? Not that that there was one. There were no studies, not tests, no hard data drawn upon. If Bush Administration blocked it it might have been becuase they were given grants and the Bush Administration wants to know where the money went. Since it does seem to have not gone where it was supposed to.

Yes there were studies. There are plenty of them.

You are one of these denialists aren't you?

really, name 5 objective studies. Then name some experiments. Consensus means nothing if there is not objective evidence to back it up.

Are you 12 or something?

Are you 12 or something?

Ad hominem

I guess that means you can't even find one objective study, or mistakenly believe that just becuase you say so it must be so.

Take any peer reviewed paper.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7110/abs/nature05132.html

feel free to critize the objectivity of this paper.

Did you already look on the map where switserland is?

Take any peer reviewed paper.

And how many of those have later been shown to be inaccurate, false, misleading or otherwise just plain fuckin' wrong?

Just because someone says it, don't mean it's factual or correct.

Baron Max

And how many of those have later been shown to be inaccurate, false, misleading or otherwise just plain fuckin' wrong?

Just because someone says it, don't mean it's factual or correct.

Baron Max

about zero if you don't have anything substantial to add.

about zero if you don't have anything substantial to add.

Yeah, but life is not static, Spurious, it changes all the time ...minute by minute, hour by hour. And thus there's always something new and relevant to almost anything and everything.

Baron Max

Yeah, but life is not static, Spurious, it changes all the time ...minute by minute, hour by hour. And thus there's always something new and relevant to almost anything and everything.

Baron Max

Is this your argument against the article I gave a link to?

Is this your argument against the article I gave a link to?

No, Spurious, and if you'd read my post, I even copied YOUR post so that everyone could see what my post was responding to ....or didn't you read it?? ...LOL!

Baron Max

is it not about time you came up with an argument?

is it not about time you came up with an argument?

No, I seldom, if ever, argue, Spurious. I like to point out inconsistencies in the arguments of others. It's easier, plus I don't have to konw a lot of unnecessary shit ....clogs up my brain to the more enjoyable pursuits.

But, please, you keep throwing out posts and I'll keep responding .....as long as it's fun, of course. :)

Baron Max

No, I seldom, if ever, argue, Spurious. I like to point out inconsistencies in the arguments of others. It's easier, plus I don't have to konw a lot of unnecessary shit ....clogs up my brain to the more enjoyable pursuits.

I must intervene this highly interlectual conversation you people are having with a brief message :) Baron; Your one of my favorite posters

No, I seldom, if ever, argue, Spurious. I like to point out inconsistencies in the arguments of others. It's easier, plus I don't have to konw a lot of unnecessary shit ....clogs up my brain to the more enjoyable pursuits.

But, please, you keep throwing out posts and I'll keep responding .....as long as it's fun, of course. :)

Baron Max

It must be easy then for you to point out the flaws in the article. Please enlighten us. We are almost peeing in our pants of excitement.

It must be easy then for you to point out the flaws in the article. Please enlighten us.

Geez, Spurious, you can't even read either?! What I said was: "I like to point out inconsistencies in the arguments of others. It's easier,..." I didn't say a fuckin' word about the article!

We are almost peeing in our pants of excitement.

Besides, even if I could comment on the article ...I'd much rather see you pee your pants! ....LOL!

Baron Max

And how many of those have later been shown to be inaccurate, false, misleading or otherwise just plain fuckin' wrong?

Just because someone says it, don't mean it's factual or correct.

Yes, about zero. Do you know what peer-reviewed papers are? All about scientists checking other scientists work. They all agree that humans aid in global warming. Zero disagree with those papers.

The only ones who do disagree are some people in the media with no scientific background or so-called "scientists" who have never submitted a peer review paper because they'd be shot down with their lies because those people work for Exxon trying to push an unscientific agenda that suits their materialistic goals.

James also mentioned that from the movie An Inconvenient Truth. Showed the stats of true scientists that disagree with it which is zero in peer reviewed journals yet it's something like 50-75% disagree from the media because we all know who runs and controls that press. Haha, we can all see that the spin stops there, eh? Silly media.

- N