By Jennifer Haberkorn
Amid the growing fight over the accuracy of climate data, President Obama is seeking to have the federal government put its imprimatur on the science by calling for the creation of a new federal office to study and report on global warming.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Service office would help federal agencies and businesses prepare for and cope with global changes, similar to how industries have used data from the 140-year-old National Weather Service to create new technologies and provide services.
“This service will be a vital part of our growing body of knowledge on climate change, and will be held to the highest standards of scientific integrity and transparency,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
The NOAA Climate Service office, which requires requires congressional committee approval, has been under development for years and is not designed to stem controversies over the accuracy of climate data, according to NOAA officials. It will cull existing data and programs from various Commerce offices under one roof.
But the proposed office does fall in line with the administration’s effort to act on climate change in Congress and on the world stage. In Congress, the push for capping emissions of carbon dioxide, which some scientists say is causing global warming, has stalled in the Senate.
World leaders, spurred by Mr. Obama, failed to craft a cohesive response to climate changes at the United Nations’ Copenhagen conference in December. They did come up with a non-binding deal that leaders called a “first step” to stemming greenhouse gas emissions.
Developing countries such as China have resisted efforts to cap their emissions as their industries grow more quickly and emit more than developed countries such as the United States.
Mr. Locke said changes to the Earth’s temperatures threaten to melt polar ice caps, raise sea levels, threaten farmers’ crops and change weather patterns. Last month, the National Climatic Data Center reported that the decade that ended in 2009 was the warmest on record worldwide, surpassing the 1990s. Many scientists believe human activity has played a substantial role in the changes.
But others question the legitimacy of that research. The United Nations’ climate talks were overshadowed by the revelation of documents that purportedly showed several prominent researchers selected data that supported their theory that humans caused climate change.
I’m all for studying “climate change” as long as it’s done honestly, without an agenda. But do we really have that in this? I seriously doubt it.
The climate change lobby is in fact a political movement originally a Greenpeace initiative but has grown into a UN backed organisation.
It now includes many government agencies green based companies,government departments of the USA UK,EU,etc.
the aimis to use the taxes from CO2 to pay for the development of the third world,but controlled by a UN agency in a suitable socialist way.
Of course you the industrialised worlds workers pay TRILLIONS from wages [where else] to advance this scam.
http://euro-med.dk/?p=56
http://euro-med.dk/?p=11956
It was not originally a Greenpeace initiative. They fully support it, obviously, but the originators were from the Club of Rome. It’s in the book Limits to Growth from 1974.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
If you really want to know what this is all about read this: http://www.green-agenda.com/
It sure has taken the Club of Rome to get its act together though eh, Neil? What are they waiting for anyway??? It took those rich bright minds this long to utilize a bogus idea like global warming to achieve their evil deeds? Really? That club sure sucks then, cuz they could have sold the public on global warming MUCH easier in the 70’s than now. Oh well…
They are not going to study this, they are “culling” the existing data under one roof, then they act on it and penalize all middle class people on the U.S. What a joke! This is no different. They take the answer they want and squish the facts to support it. Under one roof. That will make it easier for the administration to duck all the “denier’s” rebuttals. This is a joke, this president is destroying this country! Time to rise guys, we need the vote this November. This has to stop.
Oh, yes, and voting Republican will “stop” IT….???!!!! Very very pathetic and sad. Wake up and get a clue.
If this was a Republican administration you would be saying how great it is that the issue would finally be studied by heroic and objective saints in the very government you love to hate, but only when it’s in Dem hands.
Here’s a little secret……. shhhhhhh, don’t tell anyone else, Ok??!! There isn’t any real difference between the two parties…. ya know: “good cop, bad cop”. Get it ???????????????????? Yes, No??? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop it. There is a huge difference between Republicans, and Democrats. Just because YOU think there is no difference does not make it true. Look at, for example, Boxer (D) and Inhofe (R). http://epw.senate.gov/public/?CFID=36797833&CFTOKEN=59671064 If you think those two are of the same mindset, then you are clearly deluded.
Ok then, you don’t GET it. We’re clear on that now Neil, thanks.
Rob, did I mention a party to vote for? I went through my post…hmm…no mention of the repubs there. I am too libertarian to be a repub, and too smart to be a democrat. Where do you think I should go Rob?
You are the one who metioned voting. You tell me where you should go. Libertarian I guess… good luck with that. I do not like either major party either, but one or the other still wins every time. So you are the confused one. We need to change THE SYSTEM, and until we do nothing will change and things will coniunally get worse for the poor and the middle class. So come one, you tell me what we should do. I’m waiting…
We know you want the system to be changed Rob. But what you want is Communism. You say things are continually getting worse for the poor and the middle class. Really? I think you are misinformed about that.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/BG791.cfm
“Poor” Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than did the average U.S. citizen throughout much of the 20th Century. In 1988, the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation.”
And do you know what did that? Capitalism.
Your protestations about needing to change the system are nothing more than propaganda. You want to change the system to a Communist system, of course you will only point out the flaws of the current system. Conversely you will only point out the good attributes of the system you favor. You are transparent.
Rob, you consistently ask what “We should do.” What are your recommendations? I never see any detail, simply bashing. Bye the way the IPCC just changed their tune yet again today. (No global warming since 1995). Truth is finally coming to a head. Let us know how you would personally change things as well as the person that you would put in charge. We are waiting. We are all curious.
Once again you’ve turned reality around 180 degrees. It is you, mostly, who does not have any solutions, besides “VOTING”. I’ve listed plenty of ideas on this site. Only you don’t like any of them and so pretend I haven’t listed any. I am asking you, and you respond with an attack. Niiiice, and not too clever…BTW. And Neil, as usual, cherry-picks whatever “facts” he likes, and suspends reality to fit his psyche.
What every American needs to understand about true evil and the rest of the “dark side” is this. Not only has our embrace of the dark side violated our laws and profaned our values (e.g. torture). And not only have we received no safety in exchange for our willingness to cash in our national ideals. No, the real irony, the real tragedy is that war and secret prisons and torture and the rest have created and continue to create a new generation of Muslim extremists intent on revenge. We know this. We try to stopper our minds, but our intuition won’t be silenced. It’s why we’re so afraid. And angry, and unwilling to listen to reason and logic. The choice is the light or the dark, and I’m not talking skin color… You guys choose the dark, every time, or so it seems.
Yea Rob, it’s not like the middle east has been at war for thousands of years or anything….oh, sorry, it has! Yea its not like we weren’t attacked several times before 9/11…oh,sorry,we were. You seem to think that we are the cause of all their anger, when we are just defending ourselves. Are we to just sit back and let them kill innocent people? (Our innocent people) Rob this goes back too far to try and lay the blame on the U.S. So, if I may, let me surmise your position; If we defend ourselves, we are evil! ok just wanted to make sure I had it right.
I will never understand a person NOT “voting” for his/her beliefs. That’s what built this wonderful country where we can have this discourse. Some people will never see the light.
So who are you voting for if not the Right or Left? And if you believe both are part of the problem as I do, then why vote at all ???!!! By doing so in any way simply validates a broken and very corrupt system, and helps the crooks stay in power. Tell me I’m wrong about that, please, and if you do explain how that can be a sane and rational choice…
As for Hal, you misconstrue and purposefully twist everything I say. If you can’t be rational then I cannot respond to such childishness.
(reality to Hal- is was mostly Saudi Arabians who were the 9/11 attackers… so why aren’t we attacking them???)
Answer: too difficult for Hal to understand apparently. Advice: Keep reading “My Pet Goat” and let the adults do the thinking.
I vote my conscience, and my children do not know who I vote for nor do I wish to know who they voted for as well. At least we vote our convictions. We don’t sit back and chastise peple for their beliefs, or lack thereof, as you. I note that you read Alinsky quite often. You could be a Czar for Obama. Think about it and the fame it would bring to you! Oops, that would be an “elitist.” Forgot. You don’t want to make money. Sorry my mistake.
To be called irrational by Rob is a badge I wear with pride. Just curious Rob, if the terrorist is from N. Dakota, are we suppose to attack Bismark? Or do we track down his trainer and or his training ground? I want to apologize to the other members here for going down the terror road, I took the bait from Rob. This site is for AGW debate, not other topics. Sorry guys.
Who’s going to be the Climate Czar? “Howdy Doody on Dope” Will they ever see the writing on the wall called ” Global Climate Scam?”!
You mean W ? He would make a good Drug Czar I think. His family have been in the drug business for years.
This is for Hal:
As it happens, I don’t like Barack Obama either. And my reasons for doing so are piling up fast. But I would never mistake him for a liberal. And that, in fact, is one of the things I most despise about this disloyal (to Liberals anyway) president. I couldn’t possibly care less what happens to him, other than hoping for fate to return the favor after all he’s done (and, especially, failed to do) to the country he promised to rescue. But I do care about progressivism (or liberalism, if one prefers – I typically avoid that term now that the Right have turned it into something slightly less hated than pedophilia), and I’m furious that this pathetic president and his horrid little whorehouse of a political party, who are about as liberal as George W. Bush was, are taking down the political ideas I care about with their own sinking ship.
By not refuting the false accusations that he is a liberal or even a socialist, and by running an abysmal presidency, Obama has done as much as the scum on the Right (Beck, O’Rielly, Rush) in service to wrecking a set of ideas that are not only noble and correct, but are desperately needed now by a country imploding under the weight of the regressive politics which has been ascendant for thirty years now. Worst of all – and quite by design – Americans are forgetting what any sort of progressive politics would even actually look like. Orwell understood the significance of this phenomenon so well he made it the existential nightmare of his protagonist, Winston Smith. All Winston wanted to do was to hold onto some sense of a tangible reality. O’Brien, his torturer, showed him what happens when power not only wants to win battles, but better yet end them forever by eliminating the very opposing ideas people might embrace.
More on this sad saga to come…
Obama not a liberal? Are you in deep depression? Old timers disease?
You are deeply asleep and/or brainswashed to view him as a Liberal. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Why can’t you, is the real question …
“Liberal” is an understatement.
Social engineering they call it? Never changes does it.
You guys really see Obama as not just Liberal but even left of THAT? Really? ! You’ve got to be joking.
Not joking. Give examples otherwise or why have further discussion? I believe you are a “Troll.”
OMG. You aren’t joking…
That frightens me, it really does. What kind of right-wing fantasy world would make you fringies happy? I mean really, what would it take?
Oh, sorry, I didn’t answer your question. It’s pretty easy actually. It goes like this: 99% of EVERYTHING Obama has done had NOT been Liberal or Progressive. It would be much quicker to research what he has done that WAS Liberal, not what Wasn’t.
Answer the question Sir!!! If you were under oath, you would have a problem. Let us know after Obama gives you his talking points.!!!
I agree with Rob, 99% of Obama actions are socialist (not liberal) or comunist (not progressive) and Castro-Chavez alike
Agreed.