"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:xsNLe.196011$tt5.146158@edtnps90...
Based on what I have seen in the real world, you NEVER want to use model
output to gain confidence in your measurements. You should normally want
to use several independent measurements (e.g., use several different
methods) of the same variables to attempt to answer the question of what
the real measurements should be.

Yes. Hence the point I was making is that the measurements are not worth
much because they are less confidence inspiring than the balloon data.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ model
predictions.

sorry for the confusion.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

In article ,
owl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:31:09 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
. ..

Back to the original article Roger posted:-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe
in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other
people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what
surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong
and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more
accurate."

I think it is true to say that George W. Bush belongs to the first group of
critics

Actually, GBJr has never denied GW or human involvement (tho you'd
think otherwise when his loyalists 'discuss' it.):- he's just thrown
up the FUD about everything that follows after that.

He most certainly denied both, up until this year.

On 15 Aug 2005 15:09:46 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article ,
owl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:31:09 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
...

Back to the original article Roger posted:-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe
in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other
people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what
surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong
and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more
accurate."

I think it is true to say that George W. Bush belongs to the first group of
critics

Actually, GBJr has never denied GW or human involvement (tho you'd
think otherwise when his loyalists 'discuss' it.):- he's just thrown
up the FUD about everything that follows after that.

He most certainly denied both, up until this year.

That's just plain incorrect, a great myth, and a media ponyride that
keeps trying to say 'there, he said it' for a headline.

Back as far as his famous No-Kyoto rejection, the theme was 'It's
about the environment. And it's about jobs. There has to be a
balance."

http://ygraine.membrane.com/enterhtm...ts_Treaty.html

Said Bush in 2001 - "We'll be working with our allies to reduce
greenhouse gases, but I will not accept a plan that will harm our
economy and hurt American workers," the president told reporters
Thursday when asked about the climate agreement reached in 1997 in
Kyoto, Japan.

He's used Fear (you'll lose your job), Uncertainty (unsubstantiated
claims of Science, more research required), and Doubt (you may not
have electricity) to keep the issue off his agenda.

Speech in 2002:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...782747,00.html

"In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we
must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate
change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the
scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can
begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate
change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks."

"I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework
Convention and it's central goal, to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human
interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce
America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our
economy."

"If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound
science justifies further action, the United States will respond with
additional measures that may include broad-based market programmes as
well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to
accelerate technology development and deployment."

Like I posted - GWBJr hasn't denied global warming or absolved a human
connection. Show me the denial.

In article ,
owl wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 15:09:46 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article ,
owl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:31:09 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
. uk wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
m...

Back to the original article Roger posted:-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe
in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other
people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what
surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong
and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more
accurate."

I think it is true to say that George W. Bush belongs to the first group
of
critics

Actually, GBJr has never denied GW or human involvement (tho you'd
think otherwise when his loyalists 'discuss' it.):- he's just thrown
up the FUD about everything that follows after that.

He most certainly denied both, up until this year.

That's just plain incorrect, a great myth, and a media ponyride that
keeps trying to say 'there, he said it' for a headline.

Oh come on, of the EPA report about global warming, he dismissed it as
something the "bureaucrats" had said. He repeatedly said more study was
needed, that the science was not settled. Only this year did he accept GW.


Back as far as his famous No-Kyoto rejection, the theme was 'It's
about the environment. And it's about jobs. There has to be a
balance."

http://ygraine.membrane.com/enterhtm...Rejects_Treaty.
html

Said Bush in 2001 - "We'll be working with our allies to reduce
greenhouse gases, but I will not accept a plan that will harm our
economy and hurt American workers," the president told reporters
Thursday when asked about the climate agreement reached in 1997 in
Kyoto, Japan.

He's used Fear (you'll lose your job), Uncertainty (unsubstantiated
claims of Science, more research required), and Doubt (you may not
have electricity) to keep the issue off his agenda.

Speech in 2002:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...782747,00.html

"In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we
must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate
change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the
scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can
begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate
change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks."

"I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework
Convention and it's central goal, to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human
interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce
America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our
economy."

"If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound
science justifies further action, the United States will respond with
additional measures that may include broad-based market programmes as
well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to
accelerate technology development and deployment."

Like I posted - GWBJr hasn't denied global warming or absolved a human
connection. Show me the denial.
July 24, 2003 - The Bush administration announced its final details of a
10-year
plan to study global warming to determine whether greenhouse gases and other
human-generated pollutants have contributed to an unnatural warming of Earth's
atmosphere. This move was widely criticized and seen as a way for the
Administration to delay any real action on global warming.
(7/25/03 – The Washington Post, “Taking on Global Climate Change”)

Then there's the changing of the EPA report, deleting the section on GW.
Refuse to believe that too?

On 15 Aug 2005 21:02:16 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article ,
owl wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 15:09:46 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article ,
owl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:31:09 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
.uk wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
om...

Back to the original article Roger posted:-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe
in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other
people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what
surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong
and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more
accurate."

I think it is true to say that George W. Bush belongs to the first group
of
critics

Actually, GBJr has never denied GW or human involvement (tho you'd
think otherwise when his loyalists 'discuss' it.):- he's just thrown
up the FUD about everything that follows after that.

He most certainly denied both, up until this year.

That's just plain incorrect, a great myth, and a media ponyride that
keeps trying to say 'there, he said it' for a headline.

Oh come on, of the EPA report about global warming, he dismissed it as
something the "bureaucrats" had said. He repeatedly said more study was
needed, that the science was not settled. Only this year did he accept GW.

Still wrong, and direct quotes from Bush as far back as 2001 have been
provided to support this.

His rejection of the EPA Report is exactly that.

Yes, he has said more study is needed - instead of action. That
doesn't say he's rejected either GW or human involvement.

Back as far as his famous No-Kyoto rejection, the theme was 'It's
about the environment. And it's about jobs. There has to be a
balance."

http://ygraine.membrane.com/enterhtm...Rejects_Treaty.
html

Said Bush in 2001 - "We'll be working with our allies to reduce
greenhouse gases, but I will not accept a plan that will harm our
economy and hurt American workers," the president told reporters
Thursday when asked about the climate agreement reached in 1997 in
Kyoto, Japan.

He's used Fear (you'll lose your job), Uncertainty (unsubstantiated
claims of Science, more research required), and Doubt (you may not
have electricity) to keep the issue off his agenda.

Speech in 2002:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...782747,00.html

"In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we
must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate
change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the
scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can
begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate
change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks."

"I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework
Convention and it's central goal, to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human
interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce
America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our
economy."

"If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound
science justifies further action, the United States will respond with
additional measures that may include broad-based market programmes as
well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to
accelerate technology development and deployment."

Like I posted - GWBJr hasn't denied global warming or absolved a human
connection. Show me the denial.
July 24, 2003 - The Bush administration announced its final details of a
10-year
plan to study global warming to determine whether greenhouse gases and other
human-generated pollutants have contributed to an unnatural warming of Earth's
atmosphere. This move was widely criticized and seen as a way for the
Administration to delay any real action on global warming.
(7/25/03 – The Washington Post, “Taking on Global Climate Change”)

Yes. Link-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

And the response is massive stall-strategy anger. However, the
spokespeople are not George Bush, and there's no denial of warming.
There is a big fat U as in FUD about joining the dots between human
pollution and 'unnatural' warming.

Then there's the changing of the EPA report, deleting the section on GW.
Refuse to believe that too?

And that cover up is evidence that GWBJr denied GW or an AGW
connection? No, it isn't. It's evidence of a continued course of not
taking action.

The eyes-wide shut are yours, not mine. A campaign to avoid action is
a very different beef from rejecting the problem or the connection.
So quit with the substitute responses - show the George Bush denials.

"A campaign to avoid action is a very different beef from rejecting the
problem or the connection."

Owl, this is only true if the person doing the rejection is making an honest
attempt to consider the issue. Bush isn't. In his case, the campaign to
avoid action is the means of rejection. Of course this approach is not
unique to him.

"owl" wrote in message
...
On 15 Aug 2005 21:02:16 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article ,
owl wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 15:09:46 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article ,
owl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:31:09 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
o.uk wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
news:djnuf1143gva7lrci4a4ngcfkbc3bekah6@4ax. com...

Back to the original article Roger posted:-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe
in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other
people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what
surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were
wrong
and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much
more
accurate."

I think it is true to say that George W. Bush belongs to the first
group
of
critics

Actually, GBJr has never denied GW or human involvement (tho you'd
think otherwise when his loyalists 'discuss' it.):- he's just thrown
up the FUD about everything that follows after that.

He most certainly denied both, up until this year.

That's just plain incorrect, a great myth, and a media ponyride that
keeps trying to say 'there, he said it' for a headline.

Oh come on, of the EPA report about global warming, he dismissed it as
something the "bureaucrats" had said. He repeatedly said more study was
needed, that the science was not settled. Only this year did he accept
GW.

Still wrong, and direct quotes from Bush as far back as 2001 have been
provided to support this.

His rejection of the EPA Report is exactly that.

Yes, he has said more study is needed - instead of action. That
doesn't say he's rejected either GW or human involvement.

Back as far as his famous No-Kyoto rejection, the theme was 'It's
about the environment. And it's about jobs. There has to be a
balance."

http://ygraine.membrane.com/enterhtm...Rejects_Treaty.
html

Said Bush in 2001 - "We'll be working with our allies to reduce
greenhouse gases, but I will not accept a plan that will harm our
economy and hurt American workers," the president told reporters
Thursday when asked about the climate agreement reached in 1997 in
Kyoto, Japan.

He's used Fear (you'll lose your job), Uncertainty (unsubstantiated
claims of Science, more research required), and Doubt (you may not
have electricity) to keep the issue off his agenda.

Speech in 2002:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...782747,00.html

"In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we
must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate
change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the
scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can
begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate
change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks."

"I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework
Convention and it's central goal, to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human
interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce
America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our
economy."

"If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound
science justifies further action, the United States will respond with
additional measures that may include broad-based market programmes as
well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to
accelerate technology development and deployment."

Like I posted - GWBJr hasn't denied global warming or absolved a human
connection. Show me the denial.
July 24, 2003 - The Bush administration announced its final details of a
10-year
plan to study global warming to determine whether greenhouse gases and
other
human-generated pollutants have contributed to an unnatural warming of
Earth's
atmosphere. This move was widely criticized and seen as a way for the
Administration to delay any real action on global warming.
(7/25/03 - The Washington Post, "Taking on Global Climate Change")

Yes. Link-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

And the response is massive stall-strategy anger. However, the
spokespeople are not George Bush, and there's no denial of warming.
There is a big fat U as in FUD about joining the dots between human
pollution and 'unnatural' warming.

Then there's the changing of the EPA report, deleting the section on GW.
Refuse to believe that too?

And that cover up is evidence that GWBJr denied GW or an AGW
connection? No, it isn't. It's evidence of a continued course of not
taking action.

The eyes-wide shut are yours, not mine. A campaign to avoid action is
a very different beef from rejecting the problem or the connection.
So quit with the substitute responses - show the George Bush denials.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:51:35 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:

"A campaign to avoid action is a very different beef from rejecting the
problem or the connection."

Owl, this is only true if the person doing the rejection is making an honest
attempt to consider the issue.

Steve, that's not the only time it's true. And in this case, that
restriction is false - Bush knows about the warming, and he accepts
the connection - it's the remediation action, in any shape or form
that has mandatory on it, that he's fighting.

Imo, it's anything but a co-incidence that the '2003 Study' Lloyd
referred to has 2007 and 2012 target dates on it. It's anything but a
co-incidence that a band of science sorcerers around the
Administration cry chicken-little at the problem, while another
smaller of group of people in the Administration say it's a known and
action could be 'in the pipe' shortly.

Bush has laid it out very clearly - he's responsible for the welfare
of the American people, and it is not in the best interests of the
American people to clean it up. It gets down to terrible ROI:- and
the American voters bought the package.

Bush isn't. In his case, the campaign to
avoid action is the means of rejection. Of course this approach is not
unique to him.

Altho it could be a word game to join those dots, I'll agree that
there are cases where rejection is behind a refusal to act. In Bush's
case, however, that isn't the case. If anything, that is the most
frustrating part about it - the tactic of proving there's a problem or
joining the dots to pollution won't work. He says "Yabut" and then
talks jobs and energy supply.

"Raymond Arritt" wrote in message
news:AULLe.25762$084.24826@attbi_s22...
Alastair McDonald wrote:
The point that I am making is that the models are wrong, but the
scientists are not willing to face that fact, perhaps because it they do,
they will have egg on their faces in a big way!

To the contrary we're very, very aware that the models are wrong.
That's why we spend so much effort on model development and verification.

The models always will be wrong in a formal sense but they are
continually improving. I don't remember who originally said "All models
are wrong, but some models are useful." It's one of my favorite quotes.

My favourite quote is "All animals are equal, but some animals are more
equal than others" George Orwell "Animal Farm." It is like saying all men
can be President of the USA, so long as you have $100, 000,000, or anyone
can get published in Nature so long as you have FRS after your name. It is
even like saying "all scientists are not willing to face the facts" then
excluding
Raymond Pierrehumbert who wrote: "... something is wrong with the slab
atmosphere model." See
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/geo232/Notes.pdf page 24.

Anyway enough of this hand waving. It is not that the models are inherently
inferior to actuality. They would not be models if they were exactly the
same.
The problem is that even the GCMs use the slab model and Schwarzschild's
equation to calculate the effects of radiation. All is explained in my paper
which I have put up on the web at;
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.htm with a PDF version at
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.pdf

I'll post another message in a new thread where comments will be welcome.

Cheers, Alastair.

In article ,
owl wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 21:02:16 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article ,
owl wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 15:09:46 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article ,
owl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:31:09 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
o.uk wrote:


"owl" wrote in message
news:djnuf1143gva7lrci4a4ngcfkbc3bekah6@4ax. com...

Back to the original article Roger posted:-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe
in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other
people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what
surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong
and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more
accurate."

I think it is true to say that George W. Bush belongs to the first group
of
critics

Actually, GBJr has never denied GW or human involvement (tho you'd
think otherwise when his loyalists 'discuss' it.):- he's just thrown
up the FUD about everything that follows after that.

He most certainly denied both, up until this year.

That's just plain incorrect, a great myth, and a media ponyride that
keeps trying to say 'there, he said it' for a headline.

Oh come on, of the EPA report about global warming, he dismissed it as
something the "bureaucrats" had said. He repeatedly said more study was
needed, that the science was not settled. Only this year did he accept GW.

Still wrong, and direct quotes from Bush as far back as 2001 have been
provided to support this.

His rejection of the EPA Report is exactly that.

Yes, he has said more study is needed - instead of action. That
doesn't say he's rejected either GW or human involvement.

Back as far as his famous No-Kyoto rejection, the theme was 'It's
about the environment. And it's about jobs. There has to be a
balance."

http://ygraine.membrane.com/enterhtm..._Rejects_Treat
y.
html

Said Bush in 2001 - "We'll be working with our allies to reduce
greenhouse gases, but I will not accept a plan that will harm our
economy and hurt American workers," the president told reporters
Thursday when asked about the climate agreement reached in 1997 in
Kyoto, Japan.

He's used Fear (you'll lose your job), Uncertainty (unsubstantiated
claims of Science, more research required), and Doubt (you may not
have electricity) to keep the issue off his agenda.

Speech in 2002:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...782747,00.html

"In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we
must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate
change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the
scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can
begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate
change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks."

"I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework
Convention and it's central goal, to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human
interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce
America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our
economy."

"If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound
science justifies further action, the United States will respond with
additional measures that may include broad-based market programmes as
well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to
accelerate technology development and deployment."

Like I posted - GWBJr hasn't denied global warming or absolved a human
connection. Show me the denial.
July 24, 2003 - The Bush administration announced its final details of a
10-year
plan to study global warming to determine whether greenhouse gases and other
human-generated pollutants have contributed to an unnatural warming of
Earth's
atmosphere. This move was widely criticized and seen as a way for the
Administration to delay any real action on global warming.
(7/25/03 – The Washington Post, “Taking on Global Climate Change”)

Yes. Link-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...ntId=A37478-20
03Jul23&notFound=true

And the response is massive stall-strategy anger. However, the
spokespeople are not George Bush, and there's no denial of warming.

Oh come on, you're saying Bush's spokespeople lie about his ideas now? He
directly said more study is needed whether human activities (greenhouse gases)
have contributed to warming. That's certainly not an acceptance.

There is a big fat U as in FUD about joining the dots between human
pollution and 'unnatural' warming.

Then there's the changing of the EPA report, deleting the section on GW.
Refuse to believe that too?

And that cover up is evidence that GWBJr denied GW or an AGW
connection? No, it isn't. It's evidence of a continued course of not
taking action.

No, the deleted section merely reported that GW is occurring. The Bush people
ordered it deleted.


The eyes-wide shut are yours, not mine. A campaign to avoid action is
a very different beef from rejecting the problem or the connection.
So quit with the substitute responses - show the George Bush denials.


Shown. Open your eyes.

In article ,
owl wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:51:35 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:

"A campaign to avoid action is a very different beef from rejecting the
problem or the connection."

Owl, this is only true if the person doing the rejection is making an honest
attempt to consider the issue.

Steve, that's not the only time it's true. And in this case, that
restriction is false - Bush knows about the warming, and he accepts
the connection - it's the remediation action, in any shape or form
that has mandatory on it, that he's fighting.

Imo, it's anything but a co-incidence that the '2003 Study' Lloyd
referred to has 2007 and 2012 target dates on it. It's anything but a
co-incidence that a band of science sorcerers around the
Administration cry chicken-little at the problem, while another
smaller of group of people in the Administration say it's a known and
action could be 'in the pipe' shortly.

Bush has laid it out very clearly - he's responsible for the welfare
of the American people, and it is not in the best interests of the
American people to clean it up. It gets down to terrible ROI:- and
the American voters bought the package.

Bush isn't. In his case, the campaign to
avoid action is the means of rejection. Of course this approach is not
unique to him.

Altho it could be a word game to join those dots, I'll agree that
there are cases where rejection is behind a refusal to act. In Bush's
case, however, that isn't the case. If anything, that is the most
frustrating part about it - the tactic of proving there's a problem or
joining the dots to pollution won't work. He says "Yabut" and then
talks jobs and energy supply.

Owl:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...046363,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0609-02.htm

And:

"The latest example of this ostrichlike behavior involves some heavy-handed
censorship of a draft report that is due out next week from the Environmental
Protection Agency. As described by Andrew Revkin and Katharine Seelye in The
New York Times, the report was intended to provide the first comprehensive
review of what is known about environmental problems and what gaps in
understanding remain to be filled. But by the time the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget finished with it
and hammered the Environmental Protection Agency into submission, a long
section on the risks posed by rising global temperatures was reduced to a
noncommittal paragraph.

Gone is any mention that the 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade
in the last thousand years in the Northern Hemisphere. Gone, also, is a
judgment by the National Research Council about the likely human contributions
to global warming, though the evidence falls short of conclusive proof. Gone,
too, is an introductory statement that "Climate change has global consequences
for human health and the environment." All that is left in the report is some
pablum about the complexities of the issue and the research that is needed to
resolve the uncertainties.

This is the second shameful case of censorship involving global warming in
less than a year. Last September, a whole chapter on climate was deleted from
the Environmental Protection Agency's annual report on air-pollution trends.
That deed was done by Bush appointees at the agency, with White House
approval, possibly because the White House had been angered by a previous
report from the State Department suggesting the dire harm that could come from
climate change. President George W. Bush had dismissed that report as "put out
by the bureaucracy."

And I assume you've read what NASA's Hansen said about the White House
suppression of GW info.