View Full Version : Goremons demand secrecy, to be believed on faith!

05-26-2011, 03:28 AM
Let there be no doubt, this movement is a religious CULT. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/25/freedom-information-laws-harass-scientists)

05-27-2011, 04:06 PM
Not at all. Here's the sensible balancing of interests, as codified in US law, which opens up the actual evidence, but not the ancillary goings on:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Muir Russell report suggested that the US guidelines on freedom of information requests could be adopted in the UK:

The American experience is instructive here. The so called "Shelby Amendment" in 1998 directed the US "Office of Management & Budget (OMB)" to produce new standards requiring all data produced under Federally funded research to be made available under the US Freedom of Information Act. This resulted in great concern within the US Scientific community, expressed through Congressional testimony, that a very broad interpretation of this requirement could seriously impair scientific research and collaboration. In the final OMB guidelines, recognising these concerns, "research data" is defined as:

"the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not any of the following: preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues".

The Review recommends that the ICO should hold consultations on a similar distinction for the UK FoIA/EIR.

That looks like the way to go.</div></div> (from the comments area)

05-28-2011, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>US military goes to war with climate sceptics</span>

Political action on climate change may be mired in Congress, but one arm of government at least is acting: the Pentagon

...In 2006, I participated on a panel at the United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi called "Communicating Climate Change". With Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chair Rajendra Pachauri and respected Arctic scientist Pål Prestud on board, we aimed to figure out ways to convey climate change and its effects with greater precision and weight.

An hour before the panel commenced, we learned the communications director for climate curmudgeons, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) had elbowed his way onto the rostrum. Bleating bias – the panel skewed toward the widely held scientific consensus that climate change is real and humans are causing it – the infiltrator proceeded to hijack the panel. Rather than engaging the topic at hand, he questioned the scientific existence of climate change, levelled ad hominem attacks against various panellists, while brandishing "A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism" (a document produced by his office).
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>During the discussion period, the largely international audience responded in good faith, attempting to convince Inhofe's righthand man that the most up-to-date science undercut his worldview, that scientists weren't a grant-hungry cabal fiending for the next funding fix. Unfazed, he didn't budge – not a single part per million.</span>

Five years later feels like a timewarp, with the political promise of 2006 suspended in a molasses haze. <u>2011 brought a fresh congressional crop content to ignore what the rest of the world accepts: the IPCC's scientific consensus on climate change.</u> When Henry Waxman (Democrat, California) tried to amend to the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, to put the House of Representatives on record recognising that climate change is occurring, is caused in large part by humans and presents serious public health risks, it was summarily shot down. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Only one Republican broke ranks and voted in favour</span> (David Reichert of Washington state).

Enter what some might view as a counterintuitive counterweight: US military brass. A recent report, "A National Strategic Narrative" (pdf), written by two special assistants to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen, argued, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"We must recognise that security means more than defence." Part of this entails pressing past "a strategy of containment to a strategy of sustainment (sustainability)". They went on to assert climate change is "already shaping a 'new normal' in our strategic environment".</span></div></div>

Oh boy.

Q... link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism)

05-28-2011, 11:23 AM
The longer term planners in the insurance companies, together with the national security planners in the Pentagon, both consider global warming a most serious threat.

Pentagon planners in particular identified AGW as one if its key problems medium-term, judging it to be on the order of the Great Depression and WW II in terms of impact on the world.