The Smithsonian was forced to "tone down" an exhibit on climate change. Now there's an investigation over who leaned on them. A White House spokesperson said the White House wasn't involved at all, which, of course, means the White House did it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ May 23 2007, 04:43 PM) [snapback]448501[/snapback]</div> Is the Smithsonian funded by the federal government? If not, why do they have to listen to the government at all?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 23 2007, 09:35 PM) [snapback]448647[/snapback]</div> Google smithsonian budget. Yeah, they're (largely) federally funded, on the order of half a billion a year or so. They manage many of the national museums in Washington, DC. And, as we found out with the absolutely coincidental disappearance of the EV-1 from display when "Who Killed the Electric Car" was released, another large chunk of their budget comes from corporations, GM among them. They've been getting well-deserved flack of late for potentially inappropriate spending, e.g., first class plane tix to Las Vegas for the Smithsonian's president, things of that nature. They got a bunch of (again, seemingly well-deserved) flack over mismanagement of the National Zoo. To me, as an outsider, they have many of the signs of a poorly managed quasi-governmental organization.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ May 24 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]449001[/snapback]</div> Well if they get that much money from the gubment, then the gubment(whoever it may be at any time) certainly has the right to do the wrong thing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ May 24 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]449243[/snapback]</div> Actually, they are being forced to tell the truth AND show both sides of the debate regarding AGW. The Smithsonian's image has been tarnished by the powers to be who introduced such a one sided view of this debate. Most people can see through their short sightedness and their inability to remain detached of this clearly political debate (of which a the Smithsonian has no business being a part of). Really, let's move on to the next impending disaster, AGW is so yesterday and out of gas... Rick #4 2006
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ May 25 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]449965[/snapback]</div> Well, that junk science website you link to certainly earns its name. Literally. It is paid to put out bad science. In fact, it started doing so at the behest of RJReynolds Tobacco. You can even read their memos about it at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/syq70d00 Specifically, RJR wrote (from page 2 of the memo linked to above): - Reviewed and revised junk science Website including calls with Steve Milloy, researching and compiling Website visitor comments, and reviewing and editing new materials for inclusion on Website. - Held discussions with Steve Milloy regarding Junk Science Website content for 1997. See also: http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/stevenmilloy.pdf
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ May 23 2007, 04:43 PM) [snapback]448501[/snapback]</div> My understanding is that they self edited their display for fear of reprisals from the Fed gov't. Although that is not a good climate to work in is not the same as the gov't coming down on the Smithsonian and forcing the change. Don't get me wrong, I love to go to the museums they run and 95% of the time the displays are apolitical. but, the Smithsonian has always be a little different and seems to attract a left of center crowd as workers. I remember the display on the plains and describing cowboys as 'Elite and white'. That is of course false (most cowboys were considered scum by towns folk and a large % were not white). Fan of the Museums but skeptical of content.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ May 25 2007, 03:31 PM) [snapback]450000[/snapback]</div> The Junk Science web site had nothing to do with the research casting great doubt on AGW. The study cited by the Junk Science website was by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and yes, it meets the "gold standard" of many myopic Priuschatters, it is a peer reviewed journal. Your criticisms of the AGW study should be directed to the climatologists and scientists at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, not the messenger. Please inform us of the lies and inaccuracies of this study. Rick #4 2006
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ May 25 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]450040[/snapback]</div> The research doesn't cast doubt. The way tobacco-man-Millroy spins it is the only place the doubt exists. He spins GW science just like he did with tobacco science. He's a cretin. How does the article Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions (abstract reproduced below) cast doubt on global warming? CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y1 for 1990–1999 to >3% y1 for 2000– 2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s. Global emissions growth since 2000 was driven by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of gross domestic product (GDP) (energy/GDP) and the carbon intensity of energy (emissions/energy), coupled with continuing increases in population and per-capita GDP. Nearly constant or slightly increasing trends in the carbon intensity of energy have been recently observed in both developed and developing regions. No region is decarbonizing its energy supply. The growth rate in emissions is strongest in rapidly developing economies, particularly China. Together, the developing and least-developed economies (forming 80% of the world’s population) accounted for 73% of global emissions growth in 2004 but only 41% of global emissions and only 23% of global cumulative emissions since the mid-18th century. The results have implications for global equity. The Orange County Register article also in no way denys Global Warming. All the denial is spin put on by Millroy; all the denial is junk science.
When you read the article it just seems like a couple of guys (granted in curator like positions) complaining about funding, not that they ACTUALLY changed anything or had to espouse the "junk" denial of AGW. The changes that were detailed semd purely esthetic and had they been left in to the display would have only been in there to push someone elses agenda. The junk science is man-made global warming. there is no connection between man's activities and the current warming trend. Historic CO2 increases follow GW, not preceed it. SO your number one indicator is wrong. Now, I'm not against cleaning up the air, but the though that we can control the Earth's temperature is just as flawed as the thought that we can change it!
