Science or Bushism?

[Secretariat]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04301/402384.stm

[JustRalph]

This quote from the article explains it all..........and Bush has freely admitted that he is not going to fund pie in the sky science ....

"Singer and Varmus contended President Bush has largely ignored scientific opinion on a variety of biomedical, environmental and energy policies, and his pursuit of tax cuts in the face of rising expenses is putting the squeeze on scientific spending."

[Equineer]

JR,

Taxes and funding arguments often overlook available measures to find money that is being scammed from both sides of the ledger.

For example, we need to blow the whistle on healthy disability scammers living off of disability income when they are in good health while also operating small businesses under the radar.

[GameTheory]

There have been two recent reports debunking the "hockey stick" climate model (the one that shows the temperature being basically flat for the last 1000 years until around 1900 when it takes a steep upturn.) This model, which is just a mathematical model, by the way, is at the heart of the "evidence" for the theory that we are experiencing A) global warming, and B) that it is caused by man-made emissions as a side-effect of the industrial revolution.

Now first of all, common sense tells anyone who knows about these things that something was wrong with the model. Namely because it did not account for two historically documented periods of climate change that occurred in the last 1000 years -- what is known as the "Medevil Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age".

Anyway, the first report, by Canadians McIntyre & McKitrick uncovers some flaws/bugs in the software that produced the original model -- it had errors in it and the methodology wasn't what it was supposed to be! But even though you can't argue away a clear mathematical error due to a software bug, this report will likely be viewed with much skepticism by activists because McIntyre & McKitrick are associated with mining and oil companies.

However, the second report, published just days ago in the well-respected peer-reviewed journal Science will be harder to ignore. Hans von Storch, who directed the research, shows conclusively that the "hockey stick" is not a model of anything, and temperature variations have likely been much more extreme than the hockey stick model allows for. He goes so far as to call the hockey stick "rubbish".


Now, my question. Keep in mind this is credible & important research on global warming/climate change published just in the last week. Please see if you can find any reference to either of these reports anywhere in the U.S. mainstream news from now until the election. Betcha won't. John Kerry has been repeatedly saying "the evidence of global warming is clear, Bush has turned his back, etc." (Kerry also opposed the Kyoto treaty, by the way.)

[Storch's report was first published in "ScienceExpress" about a month ago -- did I miss the news then?]

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Gametheory,

Have you ever seen the Vostok ice core data?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/


After seeing that, I pretty much want all the global warming we can get. I live near Chicago and ice half a mile deep would really goof things up here.

Mike Nunamaker