http://www.windowspro.dns2go.com/GreenWireJune3.doc

Seals the book on who I'm voting for in November. This is ridiculous.

NOAA Web site goes online following administration delay
Andrew Freedman, Greenwire reporter

After being temporarily stalled by a Bush administration review
process, a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web
portal addressing the theory of abrupt climate change went live this
morning, detailing scientific studies showing evidence of rapid climate
shifts throughout the history of the planet.

The posting of the Web site also coincides with the national release of
a new motion picture, "The Day After Tomorrow," whose plot centers on an
extreme and scientifically uncredible version of the theory. Some inside
the government have speculated that concern over public misconception
due to the movie's content contributed concerns within the White House
that the Web site should not be posted.

Spokespersons for the White House Council on Environmental Quality and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy firmly denied such
suggestions, saying they were not aware of the NOAA Web portal.

According to David Anderson, director of NOAA's paleoclimatology
program, the Web portal includes between 20 and 30 Web pages of content
aimed at educating the public about how rapidly the climate has changed
in the past. The site was peer reviewed by experts and then cleared
through NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., which
is tasked with monitoring U.S. climate and researching historical
trends.

Mark McCaffrey, a NOAA science communications specialist and lead
author of the site, said the site was originally scheduled to go live
early last week, but on Wednesday McCaffrey said it had been placed on
an "indefinite hold" by higher-ranking officials within the Bush
administration. When contacted yesterday, however, McCaffrey said the
hold had been lifted. One official familiar with the project said
officials decided to put the site up following media inquiries from
Greenwire and other outlets.

Abrupt climate change is viewed by many scientists as a wild card
theory for how the buildup of greenhouse gases will alter the Earth's
climate system. The site details evidence that as the climate was
changing from a cold glacial to a warm interglacial state about 14,500
years ago, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rapidly returned to
near-glacial conditions for about 1,000 years, a period known as the
Younger Dryas. Then the climate abruptly returned to a warmer state,
with temperatures in Greenland rising as much as 10 degrees Celsius in a
decade.

Susanne Moser, a scientist with the National Centers for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colo. who reviewed an early draft of the Web
content, said her understanding is that the Web pages were reviewed by
the White House as part of the administration's Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP). "They had to check it at the highest level with the
White House, and some staff members in the White House decided it
shouldn't be put up because it was sensitive," she said, adding, "There
was nothing in there that was in any way political, not even in the
early version that I saw."

Speaking on background, other officials also said the White House
likely was responsible for placing a hold on the site.

Moser said NOAA sources told her that administrators at the "highest
levels" of that agency granted permission to put the site online before
it was reviewed by the White House. But spokespersons for both CEQ and
OSTP said yesterday they had not heard of the site.

NOAA spokesman Jordan St. John said the site likely went to OTSP or
CEQ. "There has to be coordination among everybody. The stuff routinely
goes up to OSTP and CEQ," he said. He refuted claims that the site was
put on hold, but rather "was working through a bureaucratic process
which doesn't always go smoothly. ... It always hangs around somewhere
too long." St. John cited the need to coordinate among the 13 federal
agencies involved in the administration's Climate Change Science Program
as a complicating factor.

Shying away from "The Day After Tomorrow"?

One possible reason observers cited for the administration's
squeamishness to put the site online is the timing of the release of the
film "The Day After Tomorrow." The new movie, from "Independence Day"
director Roland Emmerich, depicts an abrupt climate change scenario over
the course of only a few weeks. Under the film's scenario, which
scientists have said is unrealistic, greenhouse gases built up in the
atmosphere cause the polar ice caps to melt and the North Atlantic
thermohaline circulation to shut down. The movie culminates in the
sudden dawning of a new ice age.

Moser said the site was originally designed to use the movie as a
"hook" to attract people to learn about paleoclimate records on abrupt
climate change. The final version deleted all references to the film,
and also lacks a "Frequently Asked Questions" page. Instead, the FAQ
icon links to a National Academy of Sciences report summary on abrupt
climate change.

Moser said a Web page entitled "Should I Worry?" originally included a
section on whether the film's storyline could play out under real-world
conditions. She said the final version also includes a sentence from the
National Research Council which states: "It is important not to be
fatalistic about the threats posed by abrupt climate change."

The Bush administration has distanced itself from the movie in recent
weeks as build-up to its release sparked media inquiries to NOAA and
other agencies. CEQ spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House is
"just not in the business of doing movie reviews."

Moser said White House concern about the Web site is consistent with
the administration's initial action directing NASA employees not to
comment to the press about the movie, but the directive was rescinded
only days later (Greenwire, May 4).

With the prospect of even greater media attention, a researcher outside
of the government said the administration probably decided to let the
site go up to avoid "shooting themselves in the foot again."

"All I can imagine is they wanted to avoid a major publicity problem,"
the researcher added.

Peter Frumhoff, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global
Environment Program, said the Bush administration has amassed a long
record of manipulating science for political purposes. "It certainly is
consistent with [the administration's] efforts to stifle public
education on science that appears to run counter to their political
agenda," he said of the Web site.

"The first responsibility of government is to educate the public about
serious threats and what can be done about them. And on climate and on
other issues, this administration is failing that responsibility," he
said.

That IS a bunch of BS. These type of info aren't threat, they help educate the general public about our planet and our future. And ignoring or censoring this info is not going to anybody any good.

Exactly... uggh.

But the US has decided not to implement any of the Kyoto initiatives either. Maybe GWB is so scared of the fossil fuel lobby that if people are given access to any information about climate change, then they might actually begin to understand some of the stuff they see on TV.

Personally I'm not convinced of the motives of some of the scientific community when it comes to the dangers of global warming either.

yes, often times research scientists have their own agenda whether they are honest enough to admit it is often times an entirely different matter.

"Who wants funding for their pet project?"

If your insinuating people in my field or work do their work with hidden agenda's that's absurd.

The entire Bush Administration made "The Day After Tomorrow" look like a joke...

I'm sure people are smart enough to know real from fake... but extreme events are in fact real... just ask the people of the Chicago Heatwave in 1995 for one example.

I am well aware of the fact certain areas of science have bias... but I also think cutting an entire section of the government out is ridiculous.

Loosing paleoclimatology will hinder us in the future... badly. It's how we correct and form our models to predict weather events, forecasts, etc. It'll also likely cause insurance to increase... insurance agencies pull their information about property insurance from paleoclimate stuff, primarily on the coast.

johnliscomb wrote:

yes, often times research scientists have their own agenda whether they are honest enough to admit it is often times an entirely different matter. "Who wants funding for their pet project?"

So are you suggesting that US stop all science fundings to a project just because you will gain nothing from it? I don't see anything wrong with projects to help avoid an armaggedon that may occur hundreds of years in to the future. Also just because some projects seem rediculious doesn't mean that it won't make any contributions to science.

No i'm not saying that at all. I think many scientists realize a good thing when they have it and do whatever they can to insure that their funding stays in place.

That being said I think it is crappy that they are cutting that program. It sounds like it has a lot of benefits and weather is a very important aspect to just about everything. If things got too hot then crops would scorch, there would be droughts, energy demand would increase signifigantly, the list goes on and on.

I think we see problems when politics and science clash... so you made a good point actually.

It seems in todays world politics is in everything...