The US needs to start scaling back the total power it has invested in its presidency, and start setting up more truly democratic systems for administration. It isn't working, and someone needs to start changing it. I can't believe that the american people truly put that guy in office....and in fact, I don't believe they honestly did, but there he is.

TWICE!

On the other hand, you have the guy the Dems put up, you know, he invented the Internet, and now single-handedly is responsible for bringing the issue of Global Warming to the American people.

Wake up, both Parties are just as bad, putting forward "leaders" who couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag!

Yes, Mark Twain said it best about our electoral process, Americans may not always get the kind of government they want, but they always get the government they deserve!

Just think, we re-elected Bill Clinton, when we KNEW he was a philandering liar.

And to be fair, we re-elected Richard Nixon, the first Imperial President, when we knew HE was not doing such a hot job.

And yet, when we get an honest, hardworking guy like Jerry Ford or George Bush (Sr.), who doesn't play that well in front of a TV camera, we go running back to the guys with the big toothy grins and the "shucks, I'm just plain folks like you" demeanor (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) who then get us in worse trouble!

And now they're off again! Dems and Reps falling all over themselves and each other trying for that Brass Ring. Sometimes I wish our Founding Fathers were not so hasty to dump the Parliamentarian model. On the other hand, many wanted to make George Washington our first absolute monarch!

While we're being fair and all, Gore never said he invented the Internet. This is actually a kind of interesting story - I heard it on NPR's This American Life, from the originators of the story.

Al Gore gave speech in which he noted, correctly, that he had been a proponent of funding the research that created (D)ArpaNet, which as everyone knows led to the Internet. The speech was reported by a group of high school journalism students. Big media picked up on the story and added the "invented the Internet" thing, much to the dismay of the students who felt that their reporting had been co-opted.

It's since become a widely known "fact", like the faking of the moon landing, and the vast global warming conspiracy.

.

.

.

Somehow I'm guessing you've pegged me as a Democrat - presumable because I think Bush is a retard. You would be incorrect to do so. My personal political philosophy can be summed up by the bumper sticker:

"The Right is Wrong, the Left is Stupid"

I want one!

davidarheault

bhankiii,

OK, I can't prove you wrong about the Internet thing, all though I have my doubts that it's just counter-spin by the other side!

No, I never claimed you were a Democrat. I would never be so rude as to call names!

Love the bumper sticker!

What, there WAS a moon landing?

ROFL - Thanks you made my day!

Once could be an accident, twice is becoming a habit..........

You need to check your facts. The president is the leader of the executive branch only. Our laws and policies are from the legislative branch. The last I checked the legislative branch contains 2 houses, 1 based on population, and 1 with equal representation from each state. Our form of govt is correctly referred to as a "representative republic" It far out performs any democracy.

As far as your hidden "stole the election" comment there were 4 re-counts in Florida- including 1 by Rainbow Push, 1 by the Miami Herald and the attempts by the Miami-Dade county officials. None of the recounts (Official and un-official) ever put Gore in the lead. Also Florida had (and still has) a republican governor, as well as a republican majority in their state house. Why is it so surprising that they voted republican in the presidential election? In fact 7 years later they still have a republican governor. Where is the inconsistency?

Your time would be better spent learning to speak French- Believe it or not it may make you slightly less silly sounding.

JWB: why did you not want to sign the Treaty of Kioto????

Maybe he was afraid of the reaction of the average American consumer (voter)

it is spelled Kyoto.

That's it then.....he probably thought they were talking about Coyote!

it is spelled Kyoto.

My mistake Guest: I wrote it in spanish and not in English!

This is a really unbalanced bit of reportage. What did we learn from reading this? Not much about satellite sensors but a lot about how "bad" the Bush Administration (i.e. Pentagon, NASA and NOAA ) must be for eliminating expensive and faulty equipment from a satellite program.

The "SERIOUS JEOPARDY" quote has absolutely nothing to do with the "secret report" - those words were spoken in reference to the "recent loss of climate data" from existing satellites.

Would not a bit of info on exactly what data is going to "lost" (keeping in mind that these satellites are not planned to be placed in orbit for at least three years - more if the delays continue ). What about the European satellite data? Was there any redundancy?

Space aboard any satellite is precious and there are far more applications that do not make it into the final package than actually do. What about the engineering trade-offs all designs must endure in order to actually make it to an affordable, constructible and ultimately useable product? What was the original purpose of the satellite array? Were the requirements imposed by adding the climate sensors part (or all) of the cause of the overruns and delays? Cost overruns and delays are common to almost all government inspired projects - the result of improper planning and faulty specifications whose end product fails to meet the original objectives (while meeting the spec).

A simple listing of what has been (recently) lost and what might be eliminated from the planned replacements would have been quite useful - I suspect it would not have done much to support the author's point of view however – in my opinion his credibility is nil at this point.

The more I tried to understand the point of the article the more I realized all I was getting was the point of view of the author. As I found myself marveling at the twisted methodology and manipulation of excerpted quotes employed, the author's objectivity certainly came into question. After reading I found myself knowing less about the subject of climate satellite sensing capabilities and more about how this reporter feels about A) Global warming, B) Climate research and C) the "Bush Administration".

The responses (Alberta, Argentina) confirmed my fears - this was yet another political hit piece clothed in the form of a technical report designed to reinforce those whose agendas are clear.

A bit of research into the AP author's other works also makes this article even more suspect. He has an axe to grind and the AP is willing to him to do it.

Hey wireman, How warm is it up there in alaska these days. I haven't been there since the early eighties. Seriously, can you notice a change in climate? I've seen all the snow melt in the dead middle of winter in Anchorage, and have seen it snow on the 4th of July. Can you really tell a difference?

DavidARheault

sorry, I'm at work and forgot my password to log in.

Yes it is hard to tell - I have lived in Alaska for 25 years - now divide my time between the East Coast and Anchorage - hell of a commute!

You are quite right about the weather in Anchorage - we almost always get a thaw in the middle of January - lasted for about two weeks before winter "returned".

Back in my electrician days I remember working on a wind generator tower on St Lawrence island. When I climbed up the tower it was sunny, 40's, then clouds and wind moved in and it started to rain, which turned to sleet, then snow ending in fog. As I climbed down about 4 hours later the sun was beginning to break through - that night it was so clear you thought you could see the Russian coast (temperature inversion).

Oh yeah - it was July.

Wireman,

You said -

"What did we learn from reading this? Not much about satellite sensors but a lot about how "bad" the Bush Administration (i.e. Pentagon, NASA and NOAA ) must be for eliminating expensive and faulty equipment from a satellite program."

What I learned from reading this was quite opposite of what you leared from this.

I learned that NASA and NOAA were not aligned with the Bush Administration on this. The article actually states that NOAA and NASA scientists said "Unfortunately, the recent loss of climate sensors ... places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy."

I also learned that same sentiment was also expressed by Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, a watchdog program of the Washington-based Government Accountability Project who said -

"It's criminal negligence, and the leaders in the climate science community are ringing the alarm bells on this crisis."

I'm sorry.....same article, different learning experience.

Guess what folks... the climates a changin' and guess what else... It always will! We can study it all we want and we have some effect on it, but i don't believe for a second that our effects are nearly what the doomsayers accuse.

That is correct. The climate is changing and it always will.

In the past it happened over a very long period of time, during which species evolved and adapted. The issue right now, however, is the rate at which the climate is changing is much faster than it has ever changed before in history. It's a very serious concern to us, our environment and our economy worldwide.

The extent to which the balance of peer-reviewed science journals, respected by the vast majority of scientists worldwide, support these facts is not up for debate. Naturally, a handfull of respected scientists don't agree, of course. That's science.

I like to use this analogy -

I've seen 10 doctors and 8 have told me to take my medicine or I will die. One doctor told me, with a flippant attitude, those eight doctors are flat-out wrong and added that I should not worry and don't take that medicine! The last doctor didn't have a flippant attitude but said he honestly didn't believe, with the balance of evidence, that I was really sick but added "take the medicine anyway - it won't hurt and it will actually help improve your health over the long run"

Three guesses what I decided to do and you won't need the last two (guesses).

The same is true for climate change. An ounce of prevention will be worth a pound of cure, even if the 80% are dead wrong.

Sometimes it pays to remember what it is we were "talking" about - my point being that the article on climate data is being hyped for political purposes. The article is - at best - misleading and is a shining example of our agenda driven media.

Almost every news report you will see that uses that "peer reviewed" IPCC data only quotes the extreme (highest) values and the worst possible things that could possibly happen. By the way "peer reviewed" does not necessarily mean that every "peer" agreed with everything that was written - I've read some reviews on articles that were downright scathing. Notice how many of these peers have gone public with their dissenting opinions because the media fails to go past the term "peer review" implying "scentists worldwide support ..."

For the media anthropomorphic climate change is a strawdog - a very expensive one.

The damage being wrought by the climate changers is inestimable - billions have been spent and billions more will be spent trying to stop something that is inevitable - money that could have been put to use mitigating the effects of the INEVITABLE - warming and cooling of our planet.

Example - Ethanol and its effect on the cost of food worldwide - when millions eke out a life barely above starvation - I defy you to justify its benefit as merely an "ounce of cure".

Rate of change has varied from decades to eons depending on whose data you manipulate. Correlation does not imply causation. The recent satellite data for tropospheric temperature does not show the rapid increase that other temperature data appears to reveal. That "rapid rise" data has been almost all taken in North America.

Solar irradiation data tracks the variations in global temperatures far more accurately than estimated CO2 levels - and there is no need for efficacy assumptions or invoking delay factors or any of the other model machinations necessary to lay the blame for global warming on mankind (or George Bush).

What if you had scratched your finger and noticed instead of its healing the sore was growing red and hurt a lot. You went to these ten doctors and instead of getting your diagnosis and prescription from them, they produced a report that ran the gamut from "use an antibiotic cream, keep it clean - there will probably be a scar" to "amputation at the elbow". Further, the report and tests that were used to generate it are not readily available and actually the report itself was not easily understood so a third party interpreted it for you. This third party is known for emphasizing the worst in everything - especially things it does not agree with - and is suspicious of what it is you have been "doing" with that hand ... and their summary says "cut it off!"

Check out Bjorn Lomborg - The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Wireman, I salute you! (This is sincere, not a put on, or a put down). You really seem to know your stuff on this issue. Frankly, I had never seen the harm in letting the tree-huggers go off on this issue. Keeping them busy with this meant they had less time to spend working people up over more serious issues.

However, not that I am a big fan of George W. Bush, or "Junior", as I like to call him, but how do you explain his recent about face on Global Warming? Is he just jumping on the bandwagon for political reasons, or just tired of detractors accusing him of wearing blinders, or both? And how does that fit in with this decision (to scale-down the Satellite program)?

Wireman,

You clearly do seem to have considerable knowledge regarding the issue of climate change. I have personally read as much as I can on the issue too, and from both sides of the issue. And, with all due respect (and I mean that seriously) you have focused your reading on one side. When I use terms such as "on balance" and "peer reviewed" I am not referring solely to IPCC - I am referring to the widest variety of respected publications including but not limited to U.S. Government Scientists (under both Democrat and Republican administrations) and the Journal Science. I also frequent the so-called "skeptic" web sites because I sincerely and honestly hope the majority of scientists will be proved wrong.

In terms of your position that we should focus more dollars and time on preparing for the inevitable change than studying the change itself (hopefully I'm properly interpreting your position!) I believe that's what is currently going on. The value of continuing to measure the actual changes is that it will allow scientists to better understand cause and effect so we can better understand which measures to employ to mitigate the causes.

Lastly, I want to make it clear that we, as scientists, should never ignore a minority opinion. I read those "skeptic" site position papers with both interest and respect. History has shown that sometimes "minority opinions" prove correct (like the world turned out to be round, not flat!). That said, I stand by my analogy regarding the 10 doctors and "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." And, I hope (actually, I pray) that the majority of scientists telling us climate change is something to be taken "as seriously as serious gets" and to "act immediately and with a vengence to reduce greenhouse gases" prove to be horribly wrong!

Wireman,

I forgot to add a comment regarding your comment about ethanol. As a recognized expert on a wide variety of energy issues I do not subscribe to the idea that ethanol (or biofuels in general) are a sound solution. I agree with your point on ethanol. One of the blogs I subscribe to recently had this to say about biofuels -

"In case you need more evidence that biofuels are not the Big Green Conscience-Easing Solution: a disturbing pattern has emerged in Colombia, where vast palm-oil plantations are taking the place of tropical forests and farmland. Aid organizations working in the area say paramilitary gangs are seizing land for biofuel conglomerates, using threats and violence to evict rural residents. President Alvaro Uribe has pressed palm producers to more than double their acreage in the next four years, and concerned observers say his push has encouraged the illegal seizures. "The paramilitaries are not subtle when it comes to taking land," says Dominic Nutt of Christian Aid. "They simply visit a community and tell landowners, 'If you don't sell to us, we will negotiate with your widow.'" Aren't you glad we're washing our hands of that other strife-ridden fuel? Alternative energy is on the docket at this week's meeting of the Organization of American States in Panama City. So they'll probably fix all this."

For more on this subject see this -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1875709.ece

We need corn (and other crops) for food, not transportation. For survival we need 3 things - food, water and shelter. A sustainable future is one where we can sustain supply of those three things. Transportation (which is not, directly anyway, food, water or shelter) is inherently non-sustainable. For a sustainable future we need to continue to find ways to reduce or eliminate transportation energy from our lives.

Again - the topic here is my suspicion that the article was a political hit piece by an environmental advocate who disguises his agenda with global climate hysteria. The more I research the "facts" the more I realize how bogus and cheap that article was.

And now - for the rest of the story:

A brief history of NPOESS (The satellite system we have been discussing).

In 1994 the new weather satellite replacement program was developed and announced by NOAA. The basic purpose was a planned replacement of existing weather satellites. The target for the initial satellite launch was 2007. Components of the system included an ambitious array of sensitive climate data sensors (far more accurate than that required for the weather data normally collected).

The (at that time) Clinton-Gore administration, in an effort to reduce the cost of satellite systems in general, combined this project with DOD and NASA who had interest in the project. While intentions may have been good, trying to bring three disparate, unwieldy government agencies (who compete for funding on a regular basis) with their independent specifications, methodologies and cultures and expecting to save money was the height of political ignorance.

In reality they created a bureaucratic monster ostensibly under the control of NOAA. Unable to manage the problems that new technology and cutting edge R&D face on a continuous basis the project fell behind schedule and exceeded its budget.

Because the project was (in part) a DOD operation, the cost overuns triggered the Nunn-McCurdy amendment (Sam Nunn D-GA, Dave McCurdy D-OK) that requires an independent review with recommendation on whether to cancel or modify the program in question and, if feasible, provide recommendation on what needed to be done - this recommendation is called a Nunn-McCurdy Certification and is invoked when the (missile) system is "certified" as critical by the Secretary of Defence. The certification is presented to the Senate Comittee on Science and Technology who then takes what ever action they deem appropriate. So far to the best of my knowledge the (Democrat controlled) committee's response is to demand that Bush fire the Director of NOAA (Bush appointee in 2001) and his Assistant who was the program director for the NPOESS project (Clinton Administration 1998).

A report was made by NOAA and NASA in response to a request by the Bush Administration (Office of Science and Technology Policy) detailing the impact of the Nunn-McCurdy Certification. This report made it into the hands of one of those Government "Watchdog" agencies who turned it over to our intrepid (anti-Bush, environmental advocate) "journalist".

Now in case you forgot what this is all about I repeat here the first paragraph of the article:

U.S. scales back climate science via satellites

'Overall climate program in serious jeopardy,' NOAA and NASA experts say

"The Bush administration is drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space, just as the president tries to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases. A confidential report to the White House, obtained by The Associated Press, warns that U.S. scientists will soon lose much of their ability to monitor warming from space using a costly and problem-plagued satellite initiative begun more than a decade ago. "

I rest my case.

I suspect there is even more deviosity in this total train wreck of a government project but I am just about burned out on this ....

I'm off to tilt at some other windmill.....

This is a wonderful initiative on your part to discern the truth, and I thank you. You set an excellent example.

Wireman, as our Aussie friends say, "Good on ya', mate!"