Florida Power & Light Wants to Build Two Monster Coal Pollution Factories New Everglades
Carbon Criminal Polluters
* 5000 acres
* two 980 MW coal plants
* 14 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year.
* projected mercury output of 180 pounds annually, or about seven
times as much as what is produced by a larger power plant in Martin
County.
* Restoring the Everglades is now estimated to cost at least $11
billion, a hefty but necessary public investment.
* supply electricity to about 650,000 homes throughout South Florida.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/16716580.htm
Posted on Sun, Feb. 18, 2007
The last thing the River of Grass needs
By CARL HIAASEN
Once upon a time, a kid could catch a stringer of bass anywhere in the
Everglades, and fry up the whole batch with nothing to fear.
Now the bass are getting loaded with mercury, and signs posted on the
shores of freshwater canals and lakes warn anglers that eating too
many fish can be perilous.
It's not a good omen when poisonous chemicals start showing up near
the top of the food chain. For that reason, Dan Kimball, the
superintendent of Everglades National Park, worries a lot about
mercury.
Kimball recently wrote to the state Department of Environmental
Protection about a huge coal-burning power plant that Florida Power &
Light wants to build on the western side of Lake Okeechobee.
The superintendent said that mercury emissions from the proposed
Glades Power Park facility ''will increase . . . the risk of toxic
effects to both humans and wildlife.'' He also expressed concerns
about the inevitable degradation of air quality.
Kimball's not the only one with hard questions about Glades Power
Park. The Everglades Coalition is mounting a campaign to fight the
project, which must be reviewed by numerous state and federal agencies
before it's approved.
Last year, plans for a similar FPL facility were unanimously rejected
by the St. Lucie County Commission, largely because of pollution
issues.
Glades County commissioners are much more enthusiastic, anticipating
300 new jobs and a $21 million boost in property-tax revenues.
Using pulverized coal is one of the dirtiest ways to produce
electricity, and a major source of the greenhouse gases, particularly
carbon dioxide, that cause global warming.
FPL says that Glades Power Park will be one of the nation's cleanest-
burning facilities, equipped with advanced devices that will keep the
pollution output substantially below state and federal limits.
That's nice to hear, but it's also worth remembering that every
utility in the United States makes basically the same righteous
promise whenever it's seeking approval for a new plant. This is not an
industry with unassailable credibility.
Glades Power Park would be built on 5,000 acres of what is now sugar-
cane fields near Moore Haven. There would be two 980-megawatt units,
the first of which would go online in 2012. FPL says the plant would
ultimately supply electricity to about 650,000 homes throughout South
Florida.
Critics acknowledge that Glades Power Park would run cleaner than many
existing plants, but they also point out that -- according to FPL's
own estimates -- the stacks would belch as much as 14 million tons of
carbon dioxide into the air every year.
No less disturbing is the projected mercury output of 180 pounds
annually, or about seven times as much as what is produced by a larger
power plant in Martin County.
Mercury being highly concentrated, very small amounts can dangerously
affect fish, birds and wildlife over large areas.
Some people wonder why FPL has chosen a pulverized-coal system over
coal gasification technology, which is more costly but much less
harmful to the water, air and natural habitats.
In an ''integrated gasified'' cycle plant, coal is converted to gas at
high temperatures, then cooled and cleaned in a turbine. Contaminants
such as mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxides are removed before the
fuel is burned, and significant amounts of carbon dioxide and other
emissions can be trapped and stored.
Tampa Electric Co. operates a coal-gasification plant, but FPL says a
similar system wouldn't be efficient or reliable at an operation as
large as Glades Power Park.
The proposed site is about 40 miles north of the Big Cypress National
Wildlife Refuge, and 70 miles from what remains of the Everglades.
That's close enough to require FPL to follow rigid U.S. restrictions
on smokestack emissions near national parks.
Fortunately for Floridians, the review process for new utility plants
is lengthy, and there will be time to demand not just assurances from
FPL, but answers and even options.
Restoring the Everglades is now estimated to cost at least $11
billion, a hefty but necessary public investment. The project remains
an uphill struggle -- scientifically, technologically and politically.
The last thing that the River of Grass needs at this critical period
is a giant coal-burning plant near its headwaters. Such a thing cannot
possibly be operated without long-term impacts, downwind, downriver
and high in the atmosphere.
This is the start of a long battle, and there's cause to be worried
even if you don't like fish for supper.
It's the same air, same water, same problem.
Ours.
kwag...@hotmail.com
<Carbon.Criminal.Pollut...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
> >From the article:
>
> * 5000 acres
> * two 980 MW coal plants
> * 14 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year.
> * projected mercury output of 180 pounds annually, or about seven
> times as much as what is produced by a larger power plant in Martin
> County.
> * Restoring the Everglades is now estimated to cost at least $11
> billion, a hefty but necessary public investment.
> * supply electricity to about 650,000 homes throughout South Florida.
Go nuclear!
Carbon Criminal Polluters
Go fuck yourself.
kwag...@hotmail.com
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Go nukufukular yourself.
kwag...@hotmail.com
It's funny because you said a dirty word! You're cool.
Know Hydrogen TRUTH Info
Dave Head wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2007 15:23:54 -0800, "Exxon Polluters"
> <Exxon.P...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
>
>
> None of it's worth quoting. Its the same old bullshit -
Escalating power-plant costs to limit investment
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-02-16T174534Z_01_N16182242_RTRIDST_0_ENERGY-CERA-COSTS.XML
Escalating power-plant costs to limit investment
Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:45pm ET18
HOUSTON, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Escalating costs for steel and other raw
materials needed to build new power plants will delay projects and
force cancellations, limiting an expected worldwide construction boom,
industry executives said at a conference this week.
"Because of cost uncertainty, we see clients struggling to decide
whether to proceed" with generating projects, said Steve Edwards,
executive vice president of Black & Veatch Corp., a global engineering
and construction firm.
Edwards said Black & Veatch advises some clients who require
additional power supply to "go ahead." For other clients that need
only a portion of the power from a large-scale project, "that's a lot
tougher question," Edwards said at the Cambridge Energy Research
Associates conference.
Delays for steel for boilers have lengthened from three months to
eight months and delays for steam turbines have stretched from 18 to
26 months, stretching out time needed for projects that move forward,
Edwards said.
Rising labor costs are another factor that will limit the number of
projects going forward, Edwards said. Annual construction may not
reach an anticipated 15-gigawatt level "for some time," he said.
Power-plant investment is expected to total $4.5 billion between 2001
and 2030, said Andy Webster, a partner at consulting firm Accenture.
Of the major capital projects completed so far, half have not met cost
targets, construction deadlines, or initial performance goals, he
said.
Lawrence Makovich, CERA managing partner for global power, said the
average cost to build a new power plants is about $60 a megawatt while
the price customers pay for electricity is more like $45 a megawatt.
The escalation trend even creates problems in regulated utility
markets, Makovich said, citing concern about how long companies will
wait to recover investment in new plants.
Because few power plants have been built in the past five years in the
United States, "there will be sticker shock," said David Crane, chief
executive of NRG Energy Inc., <NRG.N,> which has proposed building as
much as 10,000 megawatts of new generation in Texas, California and
the Northeast.
Old price estimates of $1,000 per kilowatt for coal plants and $500
for natural-gas plants "have probably doubled," Crane said.
Despite delay and postponement, cost pressures are not expected to
abate. "We don't see any softening of prices for those projects that
go through," said Edwards.
Vendicar Decarian
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Go nuclear!
Iran is trying, but AmeriKKKa is threatening to attack them with nuclear
weapons. Israel too.
dave.w...@comcast.net
serious nuclear policy in place. If they build nukes, in the medium to
long run not only would it be much cheaper but there would be zero
carbon emissions and zero particulate emission.
"Go nuclear" is indeed the call for the day in this case, with costs
for fossil plants going up...and new generation nuclear plants going
DOWN.
David
Vendicar Decarian
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote
> The building of these coal plants is the direct result of not having
> serious nuclear policy in place. If they build nukes, in the medium to
> long run not only would it be much cheaper but there would be zero
> carbon emissions and zero particulate emission.
Which is why Iran has it's wonderful nuclear power program.
Go Iran...
dave.w...@comcast.net
wrote:
> <dave.walt...@comcast.net> wrote
And what is wrong with a soveriegn country have a nuclear energy
program?
David
Vendicar Decarian
>> Which is why Iran has it's wonderful nuclear power program.
>>
>> Go Iran...
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> And what is wrong with a soveriegn country have a nuclear energy
> program?
Absolutely nothing. But AmeriKKKa and Israel have threatened to bomb
Iran's nuclear power and enichment facilities, with nuclear weapons if
needed.
dave.w...@comcast.net
wrote:
> >> Which is why Iran has it's wonderful nuclear power program.
>
> >> Go Iran...
> > And what is wrong with a soveriegn country have a nuclear energy
> > program?
>
> Absolutely nothing. But AmeriKKKa and Israel have threatened to bomb
> Iran's nuclear power and enichment facilities, with nuclear weapons if
> needed.
Well, actually, to be percise, I would contend they will leave the
plant alone and bomb the reprocessing facilties, if they can find
them, and kill or kidnap as many nuclear engineers as they can.
But this is a politcal question...do you think Iran ought to back down
on their civilian nuclear program? They have plans for up to 15
reactors (although it will be a decade before they can afford to
finance them).
David
Vendicar Decarian
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote
> Well, actually, to be percise, I would contend they will leave the
> plant alone and bomb the reprocessing facilties, if they can find
> them, and kill or kidnap as many nuclear engineers as they can.
It appears that Israel has already murdered a few Iranian Scientists.
I give Iran my permission to murder double the number of Israeli
Scientists.
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote
> But this is a politcal question...do you think Iran ought to back down
> on their civilian nuclear program? They have plans for up to 15
> reactors (although it will be a decade before they can afford to
> finance them).
Nope. I wish them great success in nuclearizing.
It is their right as a soverign nation.
Souls Black as Coal
Souls Black as Coal
dave.w...@comcast.net
wrote:
> <dave.walt...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > Well, actually, to be percise, I would contend they will leave the
> > plant alone and bomb the reprocessing facilties, if they can find
> > them, and kill or kidnap as many nuclear engineers as they can.
>
> It appears that Israel has already murdered a few Iranian Scientists.
>
> I give Iran my permission to murder double the number of Israeli
> Scientists.
>
>
> > But this is a politcal question...do you think Iran ought to back down
> > on their civilian nuclear program? They have plans for up to 15
> > reactors (although it will be a decade before they can afford to
> > finance them).
>
> Nope. I wish them great success in nuclearizing.
>
> It is their right as a soverign nation.
I agree 100%.
David
Vendicar Decarian
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote
> I agree 100%.
We still have this little problem of AmeriKKKa and Israel kidnapping and
murdering their scientists, and threatening to strike their reactor and
enrichment facilities with nuclear weapons.
Now how do you propose that Iran is going to construct the 400 nucleare
reactors it needs in an environment like that?
dave.w...@comcast.net
wrote:
> <dave.walt...@comcast.net> wrote
I think the number is 10 or so, not 4000 reactors.
The military issue is a political one. The Iranians don't NEED a
nuclear reactor to spin plutonium out of, they need centrifuges. So,
unlike Iraq in the 1980s, I think that Iran has more ways to go in
combatting US and Israeli intentions.
Iran could acede in some ways to what the IEAE is suggesting and that
would solve the problem temporarily. It would let them get their
reactor(s) built, load the fuel, and produce 1100 MWs of power. After
it's gone critical, it's a lot harder for the Israeli's to srike a
reactor that spew radionucleotides over the earth if they hit it. The
political fall out of such an unprovocted response would be a death
nell for them (and the US since the US is ipsofacto automatically
responsible for anything Israel does since they would move without US
support).
I think there are other things the Iranians could do to isolate the US
also, that they are not doing.
David
Mishagam
external control fuel enrichment.
Their fuel enrichments program is clearly oriented to procuring nuclear
weapons only, and only gullible fools like you cannot understand this.
Why do you think that situation with few more nuclear powers is better
than current one I cannot understand - my explanation is because you are
brainless fools. I think few small nuclear wars will help you understand
something a little bit.
dave.w...@comcast.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
The only people to use nuclear weapons has been the US. Even the
Russian and the US never went at it. The point is that Iran has as
much right to nukes as Israel or the US...one thing that has been
proven: if you pocess nukes, you don't get invaded. Now, tell me again
why you think Iran ought not to have nukes?
Iran may or may not be using it's gas centrifuges for nuclear weapons
production. The US want's Iran to BUY it's nuclear fuel on the world
market, a world market increasingly under US *political* control. So,
tell me again why you think Iran out to sell out it's soverightry over
nuclear fuel?
David
Vendicar Decarian
"Mishagam" <noe...@provider.com> wrote
> Their fuel enrichments program is clearly oriented to procuring nuclear
> weapons only, and only gullible fools like you cannot understand this.
Do you have any eidence for your assertion? The foaming rants of
KKKonservative AmeriKKKans?
Sorry their continuous pattern of lies don't rate.
Mishagam
>> Iranians could easily build nuclear plant without going into out of
>> external control fuel enrichment.
>> Their fuel enrichments program is clearly oriented to procuring nuclear
>> weapons only, and only gullible fools like you cannot understand this.
>> Why do you think that situation with few more nuclear powers is better
>> than current one I cannot understand - my explanation is because you are
>> brainless fools. I think few small nuclear wars will help you understand
>> something a little bit.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The only people to use nuclear weapons has been the US. Even the
> Russian and the US never went at it.
These sentenses are contradicting one another. USA Do used nuclear
weapons against Japan - through apparently conventional bombings with
igniting bombs were far more deadly against Japan and German cities.
The point is that Iran has as
> much right to nukes as Israel or the US...one thing that has been
> proven: if you pocess nukes, you don't get invaded. Now, tell me again
> why you think Iran ought not to have nukes?
My point isn't do Iran has right to have nukes or generally to be as
powerful as USA. My point is that probability of nuclear war quckly
increases with number of nuclear powers, do they have any 'rights' for
nuclear weapons or not.
>
> Iran may or may not be using it's gas centrifuges for nuclear weapons
> production. The US want's Iran to BUY it's nuclear fuel on the world
> market, a world market increasingly under US *political* control.
It is a lie, Russia, Europe also produce nuclear enrichment services,
and it is a lie that Russia (or France) is under USA political control.
So,
> tell me again why you think Iran out to sell out it's soverightry over
> nuclear fuel?
Because many 'sovereign' countries with nuclear weapons lead to nuclear
wars.
>
> David
>
Arnold Walker
"Mishagam" <noe...@provider.com> wrote in message
news:4607fb51$0$25371$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
the thread .
Since most UN nation are against that with formation of EU and other global
groups.
And the party routing for Iran's right to nuke because soveriegnty. .
Are also talking of the global economy and the need to destory soveriety.
Seems to be a parttime right that varies with topic lines.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
kwag...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Go nuclear!
>
> Iran is trying, but AmeriKKKa is threatening to attack them with nuclear
> weapons. Israel too.
Iran doesn't need nuclear power and it's a rogue state. Do you really
want a police state with nukes?
nada
> These sentenses are contradicting one another. USA Do used nuclear
> weapons against Japan - through apparently conventional bombings with
> igniting bombs were far more deadly against Japan and German cities.
But the US is the only country that slaughters 10s of thousands with
nuclear weapons. The US will always stand indicted for this,
regardless of how many more died of convention bombings.
>> The point is that Iran has as
>> much right to nukes as Israel or the US...one thing that has been
> > proven: if you pocess nukes, you don't get invaded. Now, tell me again
> > why you think Iran ought not to have nukes?
>
> My point isn't do Iran has right to have nukes or generally to be as
> powerful as USA. My point is that probability of nuclear war quckly
> increases with number of nuclear powers, do they have any 'rights' for
> nuclear weapons or not.
Maybe, but until Iran hears that Israel has disarmed and the US stops
bringing it's nuclear weapons off the coast of Iran, Iran would be
STUPID not have a nuclear deterient to the madness of the US. The
world today is a lot more afraid of the US than Iran.
> > Iran may or may not be using it's gas centrifuges for nuclear weapons
> > production. The US want's Iran to BUY it's nuclear fuel on the world
> > market, a world market increasingly under US *political* control.
>
> It is a lie, Russia, Europe also produce nuclear enrichment services,
> and it is a lie that Russia (or France) is under USA political control.
> So,
No...you are wrong. S. Korea, Japan, etc all have fuel reprocessing
facilities. But Iran is NOT allowed to have them? Please, this is
utter bullshit. The proposed international fuel consortium will be US
controlled like they control the UN Security council, by bullying it's
members to impose sanctions on...Iran! Again, Iran would be stupid not
to have reprocessing facilities.
> tell me again why you think Iran out to sell out it's sovereignty over
> nuclear fuel?
You didn't answer this question.
> Because many 'sovereign' countries with nuclear weapons lead to nuclear
> wars.
And you know this how exactly?
David
nada
Iran doesn't "need" nuclear weapons? Israel and the US have both
surrounded it militarily and make threats and both are nuclear arms
equipped mad countries. The US is the rogue state, not Iran. I think
the US is the "police state' since it's the US that has attempted to
police the world. Fuck the US. They are maniacs and need to be slapped
down hard. I really don't want ANY country to have nuclear weapons,
but since the US doesn't agree, other countries should have the right
to arm against the mad-dog invaders of the US. Looks if you have
nukes, you don't get attacked, it's that simple. It's insane but true,
and that truth stems from the US which brings nuclear weapons into the
Persian gulf.
David
Mishagam
> On Mar 26, 9:56 am, Mishagam <noem...@provider.com> wrote:
>
>> These sentenses are contradicting one another. USA Do used nuclear
>> weapons against Japan - through apparently conventional bombings with
>> igniting bombs were far more deadly against Japan and German cities.
>
> But the US is the only country that slaughters 10s of thousands with
> nuclear weapons. The US will always stand indicted for this,
> regardless of how many more died of convention bombings.
Using weapons during war is not crime. In WW II everybody tried to kill
as many enemies as they could.
>
>>> The point is that Iran has as
>>> much right to nukes as Israel or the US...one thing that has been
>>> proven: if you pocess nukes, you don't get invaded. Now, tell me again
>>> why you think Iran ought not to have nukes?
>> My point isn't do Iran has right to have nukes or generally to be as
>> powerful as USA. My point is that probability of nuclear war quckly
>> increases with number of nuclear powers, do they have any 'rights' for
>> nuclear weapons or not.
>
> Maybe, but until Iran hears that Israel has disarmed and the US stops
> bringing it's nuclear weapons off the coast of Iran, Iran would be
> STUPID not have a nuclear deterient to the madness of the US. The
> world today is a lot more afraid of the US than Iran.
It is possible and even probable that Iranian regime wants to have
nuclear power. It is debatable and not really relevant how stupid it is.
My point is only that nuclear Iran will increase probability of nuclear
war and is not in interest of USA (or any other country but Iran).
>
>>> Iran may or may not be using it's gas centrifuges for nuclear weapons
>>> production. The US want's Iran to BUY it's nuclear fuel on the world
>>> market, a world market increasingly under US *political* control.
>> It is a lie, Russia, Europe also produce nuclear enrichment services,
>> and it is a lie that Russia (or France) is under USA political control.
>> So,
>
> No...you are wrong.
No, You are wrong. Russian and France are fully independent from USA.
Through they are also interested in nuclear free Iran.
S. Korea, Japan, etc all have fuel reprocessing
> facilities. But Iran is NOT allowed to have them?
Because S.Korea and Japan behave like grown up countries and allow
enough access and checks on their nuclear facilities so USA and other
countries can be sure they don't develop nuclear weapons.
Problem with Iran is that it wants to develop nuclear weapons and so
doesn't allow access to it's nuclear sites.
OILY Political Corruption
The country I live in has and uses torture rooms. Anybody at all can
be declared an "enemy combatant" without evidence, arrested and held
without confronting their accuser, without representation or legal
council of their choice, without visit from the International Red
Cross, without genuine opportunity to present evidence in their
defense. The government listens to phone calls without warrants, reads
emails and internet activity without court oversight. It has more
nuclear weapons than any country on Earth and refuses to limit
international gun-running of which it is one of the biggest suppliers,
refuses to ban land mines, provides cluster bombs for use in urban
areas filled with civilians. It is run by a tyrant who refuses to obey
the expressed will of the population majority. It is the only country
on Earth who has actually used atomic weapons on people. How bad could
any other country be compared to that?
OILY Political Corruption
> Because S.Korea and Japan behave like grown up countries and allow
> enough access and checks on their nuclear facilities so USA and other
> countries can be sure they don't develop nuclear weapons.
> Problem with Iran is that it wants to develop nuclear weapons and so
> doesn't allow access to it's nuclear sites.
Israel developed over 200 atom bombs under the watchful eyes of
International oversight, and used cluster bombs on civilian urban
areas provided by the US.
Vendicar Decarian
Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Iran is trying, but AmeriKKKa is threatening to attack them with nuclear
>> weapons. Israel too.
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Iran doesn't need nuclear power and it's a rogue state. Do you really
> want a police state with nukes?
AmeriKKKa is a rogue state that is the only state to have used nuclear
weapons during a time of war, has threatened to use nuclear weapons against
peaceful states, refuses to adopt a policy of no first use of nuclear
weapons, has stated it intends to violate a treaty banning the use of
nuclear weapons in space, and is rapidly becoming a fascist police state.
Further, AmeriKKKan policy toward North Korea indicates that AmeriKKKa
will bully any state that is non-nuclear and will not deal honesty with a
nation unless it has nuclear weapons.
In what way is Iran a rogue state? And what difference does it make in
international law of this term is applicable to Iran?
Further, what evidence do you have that Iran is building nuclear weapons?
So far less evidence has been reported than was reported of Saddam having
WMD.
Finally if Iran wants nuclear weapons, it has every right as a soverign
nation to develop them.
Now go fuck yourself you AmeriKKKan Cocksucker.
Vendicar Decarian
"nada" <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote
> Iran doesn't "need" nuclear weapons? Israel and the US have both
> surrounded it militarily and make threats and both are nuclear arms
> equipped mad countries. The US is the rogue state, not Iran. I think
> the US is the "police state' since it's the US that has attempted to
> police the world. Fuck the US. They are maniacs and need to be slapped
> down hard.
You are exactly right on every point David. Especially the last one.
AmeriKKKa is now the primary source of stupidity and evil in this world, and
the faster the AmeriKKKan state is Exterminated the better.
Work to that end. Destroy the AmeriKKKan economy and you destroy the
AmeriKKKan state. It is you duty as a moral person.
Get the U.N. out of AmeriKKKa and AmeriKKKa out of existance.
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Liar.
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> We still have this little problem of AmeriKKKa and Israel kidnapping and
>> murdering their scientists, and threatening to strike their reactor and
>> enrichment facilities with nuclear weapons.
>>
>> Now how do you propose that Iran is going to construct the 400 nucleare
>> reactors it needs in an environment like that?
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote
> I think the number is 10 or so, not 4000 reactors.
No, it's 933, the number I stated above, 400 not 4000, but Iran has more
than double the population that I thought. So Iran needs 933 nuclear
reactors to provide it's nation with it's energy needs.
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote
> The military issue is a political one. The Iranians don't NEED a
> nuclear reactor to spin plutonium out of, they need centrifuges. So,
> unlike Iraq in the 1980s, I think that Iran has more ways to go in
> combatting US and Israeli intentions.
Well, they don't need either. They could just build a couple of heavy
water plants and use natural uranium in a Candu type reactor system.
Plutonium would be available from the spent fuel if needed.
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote
> Iran could acede in some ways to what the IEAE is suggesting and that
> would solve the problem temporarily. It would let them get their
> reactor(s) built, load the fuel, and produce 1100 MWs of power. After
> it's gone critical, it's a lot harder for the Israeli's to srike a
> reactor that spew radionucleotides over the earth if they hit it. The
> political fall out of such an unprovocted response would be a death
> nell for them (and the US since the US is ipsofacto automatically
> responsible for anything Israel does since they would move without US
> support).
Using nukes to destroy the reactor or enrichment facilities would
certainly be the death of both nations, and I believe both to be stupid
enough to destroy themselves in such a way.
I think the calculation of political survivability for just contaminating
the desert would be acceptable to both. But politically costly certainly.
Yours is a good idea. Maybe that's why the Russians have pulled out using
the excuse of lack of payment.
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote
> I think there are other things the Iranians could do to isolate the US
> also, that they are not doing.
What they should do in my view is just be very open. Enrich fuel for fuel
use and continue to do that for a few years until everyone grows complacent
and then dirvert some to weapons production of they deem it necessary.
In the meantime they should be kidnapping and murdering Israeli Nuclear
scientists in retribution for the Iranian Nucelar scientists that Israel has
been murdering lately.
Alternately they could kidnap and murder Israeli Politicians, which seems
to me to make more sense than killing Scientists as the Israelis like to do.
dave.w...@comcast.net
I think Mr. " "Exxon Liars & Thieves" is doing the work of the coal
companies here. What do people think? My last paragraph above could be
wrong, true, but "lying"??? THat would be libel if anyone cared what
the idiot "Exxon Liars & Thieves" seriously. The fact is that any
nuclear plant to day is cheaper to build than it was 20 years ago.
Fossil has gone up...rather COAL has gone up...Natural Gas plants to
build are still the cheapest around, by 2/3 of either coal or nuclear.
Fortunatly, there is a new Renaissance for nuclear wolrd wide, and
that's what counts, not the subject-changing Citizen Exxon Liar.
DAvid
David
Vendicar Decarian
"Mishagam" <noe...@provider.com> wrote
> My point isn't do Iran has right to have nukes or generally to be as
> powerful as USA. My point is that probability of nuclear war quckly
> increases with number of nuclear powers, do they have any 'rights' for
> nuclear weapons or not.
Of course they do. International law does not forbade the creation of
nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel programs or anything else nuclear.
International treaties can do so, but only if the nation in question is a
signatory to the treaty. The NNPT comes to mind. But this treaty only
forbades the transfer of nuclear technology to nations not already posessing
it. And Iran can drop out of that treaty without penalty at any time.
>> Iran may or may not be using it's gas centrifuges for nuclear weapons
>> production. The US want's Iran to BUY it's nuclear fuel on the world
>> market, a world market increasingly under US *political* control.
"Mishagam" <noe...@provider.com> wrote
> It is a lie, Russia, Europe also produce nuclear enrichment services, and
> it is a lie that Russia (or France) is under USA political control.
AmeriKKKa would whine, and take punitive action against these nations and
they would comply to U.S. demands. At least for the moment. This will be
different a few years from now as AmeriKKKa continues on it's swift decline
to third world status.
> So,
>> tell me again why you think Iran out to sell out it's soverightry over
>> nuclear fuel?
"Mishagam" <noe...@provider.com> wrote
> Because many 'sovereign' countries with nuclear weapons lead to nuclear
> wars.
Well then Maybe AmeriKKKa should have taken steps to prevent Israel, India
and Pakistan from obtaining them.
And maybe AmeriKKKa should start enforcing it's own fucking laws and place
punitive sanctions on Israel for selling it's nuclear weapons technology to
South Africa.
And while we are at it, AmeriKKKa should stop using it's veto to protect
Israel against sanctions for it's violation of all manner of international
law, both nuclear and non-nuclear.
Go Iran....
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> One other question that comes to mind ....is how did sovereign come into
> the thread .
Have you been drinking again Arnold?
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Since most UN nation are against that with formation of EU and other
> global groups.
Have you been drinking again Arnold?
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> And the party routing for Iran's right to nuke because soveriegnty. .
Have you been drinking again Arnold?
> Are also talking of the global economy and the need to destory soveriety.
> Seems to be a parttime right that varies with topic lines.
Get off the sause Arnold. Come back when you are sober and don't slur your
words.
Vendicar Decarian
"nada" <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote
> Maybe, but until Iran hears that Israel has disarmed and the US stops
> bringing it's nuclear weapons off the coast of Iran, Iran would be
> STUPID not have a nuclear deterient to the madness of the US.
NADA is very bright. Much brighter than most AmeriKKKans.
"nada" <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote
> The world today is a lot more afraid of the US than Iran.
Fear is not the word. There are actions and there are consequences. In
this case the action is the invasion of a peaceful soerign nation, the
kidnapping and murder of it's leader and his family by the AmeriKKKan
military.
The reaction is a realization that AmeriKKKa is the enemy of all peaceful
nations and that protection against AmeriKKKan military threats are
required.
This isn't fear. It's simply a logical response to the AmeriKKKan
campaign of murder in Afghanistan and Iraq, and AmeriKKKa's history of
murdering millions over the last 60 years.
"nada" <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote
> facilities. But Iran is NOT allowed to have them? Please, this is
> utter bullshit. The proposed international fuel consortium will be US
> controlled like they control the UN Security council, by bullying it's
> members to impose sanctions on...Iran! Again, Iran would be stupid not
> to have reprocessing facilities.
Exactly. I agree 100%. It's a matter of national security. Not allowing
Iran to create it's own fuel would be like allowing them to have cars but
controlling the production of gasoline.
The U.S. has no business telling Iran what it can and can not do in it's
own nation.
Fuck AmeriKKKa. What AmeriKKKa wants is of no concern to any moral
person.
Vendicar Decarian
"Mishagam" <noe...@provider.com> wrote
> Using weapons during war is not crime. In WW II everybody tried to kill as
> many enemies as they could.
And I give Iran every right to use Nuclear, Chemical and Biological
weapons against AmeriKKKa should it be attacked by the rogue, fascist,
AmeriKKKan state.
"Mishagam" <noe...@provider.com> wrote
> It is possible and even probable that Iranian regime wants to have nuclear
> power. It is debatable and not really relevant how stupid it is. My point
> is only that nuclear Iran will increase probability of nuclear war and is
> not in interest of USA (or any other country but Iran).
Once a few nukes go off on AmeiKKKan soil I think that they will begin to
see the big picutre. If no.. Well, then who cares, because they will already
have been reduced to third world status anyhow, simply through their own
incompetence and ignorance.
"Mishagam" <noe...@provider.com> wrote
> No, You are wrong. Russian and France are fully independent from USA.
> Through they are also interested in nuclear free Iran.
The fewer countries with nuclear weapons the better. I agree. Disarm
Israel.
Vendicar Decarian
"OILY Political Corruption" <Political....@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote
> The country I live in has and uses torture rooms. Anybody at all can
> be declared an "enemy combatant" without evidence, arrested and held
> without confronting their accuser, without representation or legal
> council of their choice, without visit from the International Red
> Cross, without genuine opportunity to present evidence in their
> defense.
Are they required to even admit that you have been kidnapped and
imprisoned?
Who is this evil nation that violates international law and the Geneva
Convention?
Whichever this nation is, it's leader should be kidnapped and murdered so
it's people may be free of his brutal tyranny.
> The government listens to phone calls without warrants, reads
> emails and internet activity without court oversight. It has more
> nuclear weapons than any country on Earth and refuses to limit
> international gun-running of which it is one of the biggest suppliers,
> refuses to ban land mines, provides cluster bombs for use in urban
> areas filled with civilians.
Pure evil. Are the people powerless to overthrow this evil government and
hang the leaders for their crimes against humanity?
What do you need to destroy this evil corrupt government? Money? Guns?
Moral support? Gorilla training? Or are you waiting for some outside
military to come and kill your leaders for you and bring justice and liberty
to your nation?
> It is run by a tyrant who refuses to obey
> the expressed will of the population majority. It is the only country
> on Earth who has actually used atomic weapons on people. How bad could
> any other country be compared to that?
I pity you brother. How can I help you and your poor countrymen liberate
youselves from your vile, corrupt, criminal leadership?
Vendicar Decarian
"OILY Political Corruption" <Political....@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote
> International oversight, and used cluster bombs on civilian urban
> areas provided by the US.
Ya, but they only kill their Arab neighbours so their Uncle - Sam - you
know him, he prvents the long arm of the law from punishing them for their
crimes against humanity.
Iran going Nuclear.
Excellent.
Steve Spence
message news:1174971252.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The country I live in has and uses torture rooms. Anybody at all can
> be declared an "enemy combatant" without evidence, arrested and held
> without confronting their accuser, without representation or legal
> council of their choice, without visit from the International Red
> Cross, without genuine opportunity to present evidence in their
> defense. The government listens to phone calls without warrants, reads
> emails and internet activity without court oversight. It has more
> nuclear weapons than any country on Earth and refuses to limit
> international gun-running of which it is one of the biggest suppliers,
> refuses to ban land mines, provides cluster bombs for use in urban
> areas filled with civilians. It is run by a tyrant who refuses to obey
> the expressed will of the population majority. It is the only country
> on Earth who has actually used atomic weapons on people. How bad could
> any other country be compared to that?
>
Maybe you should move. Can we take up a collection for one way airfair to to
someplace nice for this person? say Iran or N. Korea?
--
Steve Spence
Director, Green-Trust
http://www.green-trust.org
Arnold Walker
"OILY Political Corruption" <Political....@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
Arnold Walker
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6K2Oh.12345$Sm.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
non muslim.
For the past 1200 years....
Maybe we need to do a prisoner exchange you and Jimmy Carter for the Britons
in Iran.
That way you never have to endure another day,in this evil US .
kwag...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Iran is trying, but AmeriKKKa is threatening to attack them with nuclear
> >> weapons. Israel too.
> > Iran doesn't need nuclear power and it's a rogue state. Do you really
> > want a police state with nukes?
>
> AmeriKKKa is a rogue state that is the only state to have used nuclear
> weapons during a time of war, has threatened to use nuclear weapons against
> peaceful states, refuses to adopt a policy of no first use of nuclear
> weapons, has stated it intends to violate a treaty banning the use of
> nuclear weapons in space, and is rapidly becoming a fascist police state.
I'll interpret this screed to mean no you don't.
> Further, AmeriKKKan policy toward North Korea indicates that AmeriKKKa
> will bully any state that is non-nuclear and will not deal honesty with a
> nation unless it has nuclear weapons.
MAD works, it's true. If ti doesn't work then there will be big
problems.
> In what way is Iran a rogue state? And what difference does it make in
> international law of this term is applicable to Iran?
"Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to
states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting
certain criteria such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes severely
restricting human rights, accused of sponsoring terrorism, and seeking
to proliferate weapons of mass destruction."
Iran meets all of these criteria. And the difference is in whether or
not you'd prefer such a state to have WMD.
> Further, what evidence do you have that Iran is building nuclear weapons?
> So far less evidence has been reported than was reported of Saddam having
> WMD.
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/26786.htm
> Finally if Iran wants nuclear weapons, it has every right as a soverign
> nation to develop them.
You are a fucking fool. Nations don't have rights, individuals do.
Most individuals don't have any inviolable rights in Iran, the state
supports all manner of anti-social ills and therefore the Iranian
state is a misnomer. It is a tyranny. Your defense of tyranny is
maddening. By your usage, any strong arm, mass murdering dictatorship
is a legitimate state. Go somewhere private, where your venom won't
corrupt the public sphere any longer. I've sanctioned your evil long
enough; engagement has clearly produced some moral advancement for you
[you at least fleetingly grasped your own hypocrisy], but it is no
longer worthwhile for me.
GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains
Vendicar Decarian
"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote
> Maybe you should move. Can we take up a collection for one way airfair to
> to someplace nice for this person? say Iran or N. Korea?
I think he should take some of his constitutionally protected guns and
take back his country from the Fascists in the White House, of whom Steve
Spence is clearly a supporter.
What do you think Steve? Time for the constituional authority of the
AmeriKKKan people to assert itself by putting a bullet in your small brain?
Vendicar Decarian
> "Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to
> states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting
> certain criteria such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes severely
> restricting human rights, accused of sponsoring terrorism, and seeking
> to proliferate weapons of mass destruction."
Then we are in full agreement. AmeriKKKa is a rogue state worthy of
Extermination.
Invasion of the Crackpots
wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote
Unequivocal, Vendicar Decarian, "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others
Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."
Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.
This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.
But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.
Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.
Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.
That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.
That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.
If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species
Invasion of the Crackpots
wrote:
Unequivocal, Vendicar Decarian, "warming of the climate system is
Vendicar Decarian
>> Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Finally if Iran wants nuclear weapons, it has every right as a soverign
>> nation to develop them.
Kwag the dog wrote:
> You are a fucking fool. Nations don't have rights, individuals do.
Neither do corporations. But I find it very appealing the idea that
AmeriKKKa has no right to exist.
I agree. It is high time we Exterminate the AmeriKKKan state.
Kwag the dog wrote:
> Most individuals don't have any inviolable rights in Iran, the state
> supports all manner of anti-social ills and therefore the Iranian
> state is a misnomer.
You mean the right to trial, Right to privacy, Right to food, water,
housing, medical care and education, the right to not be tortured by your
own government?
AmeriKKKans don't have those rights either.
Kwag the dog wrote:
> It is a tyranny.
An Elected Tyranny just like the Fascist AmeriKKKan state.
Kwag the dog wrote:
> Your defense of tyranny is maddening.
Your hypocracy makes me laugh at you.
Kwag the dog wrote:
> By your usage, any strong arm, mass murdering dictatorship
> is a legitimate state.
Yup. Even the strong arm, mass murdeirng fascist state that is the United
States of AmeriKKKa.
But as soon as you murder 3 million Vietnamese civilians and 100,000 Iraqi
civilians and 70,000 Nicaraguan civilians and the millions of others as
AmeriKKKa has done, and your actions are no longer restricted to within your
state, and you therefore become fair game for Eradication.
Hence the ongoing global Campaign to Exterminate the AmeriKKKan state will
continue.
Kwag the dog wrote:
> Go somewhere private, where your venom won't corrupt the public sphere any
> longer.
I have not yet been triggered to commit direct acts of resistance against
AmeriKKKan Fascism within the AmeriKKKan state. I hope this is not required
as I am not a violent man. Infrastructure seems the most moral and least
defensible target that can have tens of billions of dollars of related costs
in lost poductivity, lost goods and repairs.
You are right. AmeriKKKa has no right to exist and the AmeriKKKan people
should be free of the tolitarian corporate state that has enslaved them.
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Maybe we need to do a prisoner exchange you and Jimmy Carter for the
> Britons in Iran. That way you never have to endure another day,in this
> evil US .
Wow, you managed to type a coherent sentence. Congratulations on being
sober.
Why were those British military types violating Iranian waters?
I think Iran is trying - successfully - to get England's cooperation in
halting the campaign of murder aginst it's scientists.
Very good news indeed.
Invasion of the Crackpots
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> These civilian areas used cluster bombs packed in vest and cars as well.
"Areas" have no arms or neurons and hence can not use anything.
The Israeli people however regularly violate International law, in their
various campaign to murder as many Palestinians as possible.
Once Israel is wiped off the map, the wold will be a better place.
I think Canada would be willing to provide a northern island for the
resettlement of the Israeli people.
Crackpot Lemmings Goosestepping Off Cliffs
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2007/03/27/coal_interests.html
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action
An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to
make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed
listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species.
"This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers
to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide
emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail.
To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of
Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider
whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the
bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
"This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and
power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell,
president of Clean Air Watch.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/27/endangered_species/?source=whitelist
Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act
Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the
"safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say
environmentalists.
By Rebecca Clarren
Print Email Digg it Del.icio.us My Yahoo RSS Font: S / S+ / S++
story image
March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to
fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out
in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed
changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail
the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to
enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it
dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or
mining.
"The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act," says Jan Hasselman, a Seattle attorney with
Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, who helped Salon interpret
the proposal. "This is a no-holds-barred end run around one of
America's most popular environmental protections. If these regulations
stand up, the act will no longer provide a safety net for animals and
plants on the brink of extinction."
In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to
extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the
public. All copies of the working document were given a number
corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to
that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional
director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for
comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the
concern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall,
director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this
stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation."
Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not
based on "defensible science," says a federal employee who asked to
remain anonymous. Yet "there is genuine fear of retaliation for
communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs."
Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's
accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under
wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public
about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he
adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review
process.
Administration critics characterize the secrecy as a way to maintain
spin control, says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for
Biological Diversity, a national environmental group. "This
administration will often release a 300-page-long document at a press
conference for a newspaper story that will go to press in two hours,
giving the media or public no opportunity to digest it and figure out
what's going on," Suckling says. "[Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne
will give a feel-good quote about how the new regulations are good for
the environment, and they can win the public relations war."
In some ways, the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act
should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its
fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species
endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a
lawsuit. That's fewer than in any other administration in history --
and far fewer than were listed during the administrations of Reagan
(253), Clinton (521) or Bush I (234). Furthermore, during this
administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been
directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would
result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to
a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and
botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, a nonprofit organization.
"We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to
rubber stamp everything," wrote a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist
as part of the survey. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and
this is the worst it has ever been."
The agency has long seen a need to improve the act, says Tollefson.
"This is a look at what's possible," he says. "Too much of our time as
an agency is spent responding to litigation rather than working on
recovering the species that are most in need. The current way the act
is run creates disincentives for people to get involved with
recovering species."
Kempthorne, boss of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been an
outspoken critic of the act. When he was a U.S. senator from Idaho in
the late 1990s, he championed legislation that would have allowed
government agencies to exempt their actions from Endangered Species
Act regulations, and would have required federal agents to conduct
cost-benefit analyses when considering whether to list a species as
endangered. (The legislation failed.) Last June, in his early days as
interior secretary, Kempthorne told reporters, "I really believe that
we can make improvements to the act itself."
Kempthorne is keeping good on his promise. The proposed draft is
littered with language lifted directly from both Kempthorne's 1998
legislation as well as from a contentious bill by former Rep. Richard
Pombo, R-Calif. (which was also shot down by Congress). It's "a wish
list of regulations that the administration and its industry allies
have been talking about for years," says Suckling.
Written in terse, dry legal language, the proposed draft doesn't make
for easy reading. However, the changes, often seemingly subtle,
generally serve to strip the Fish and Wildlife Service of the power to
do its stated job: to protect wildlife. Some verge on the biologically
ridiculous, say critics, while others are a clear concession to
industry and conservative Western governors who have long complained
that the act degrades the economies of their states by preventing
natural-resource extraction.
One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible
for endangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become
extinct in "the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe
that can stretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act
protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean
either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which
timeline). For certain species with long life spans, such as killer
whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't even one
generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they
would not make the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely
to die out in two decades.
"It makes absolutely no sense biologically," wrote Hasselman in an e-
mail. "One of the Act's weaknesses is that species aren't protected
until they're already in trouble and this proposal puts that flaw on
steroids."
Perhaps the most significant proposed change gives state governors the
opportunity and funding to take over virtually every aspect of the act
from the federal government. This includes not only the right to
create species-recovery plans and the power to veto the reintroduction
of endangered species within state boundaries, but even the authority
to determine what plants and animals get protection. For plants and
animals in Western states, that's bad news: State politicians
throughout the region howled in opposition to the reintroduction of
the Mexican gray wolf into Arizona and the Northern Rockies wolf into
Yellowstone National Park.
"If states are involved, the act would only get minimally enforced,"
says Bob Hallock, a recently retired 34-year veteran of the Fish and
Wildlife Service who, as an endangered species specialist, worked with
state agencies in Idaho, Washington and Montana. "States are, if
anything, closer to special economic interests. They're more
manipulated. The states have not demonstrated the will or interest in
upholding the act. It's why we created a federal law in the first
place."
Additional tweaks in the law would have a major impact. For instance,
the proposal would narrow the definition of a species' geographic
range from the landscape it inhabited historically to the land it
currently occupies. Since the main reason most plants and animals head
toward extinction is due to limited habitat, the change would strongly
hamper the government's ability to protect chunks of land and allow
for a healthy recovery in the wild.
The proposal would also allow both ongoing and planned projects by
such federal agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest
Service to go forward, even when scientific evidence indicates that
the projects may drive a species to extinction. Under the new
regulations, as long as the dam or logging isn't hastening the
previous rate of extinction, it's approved. "This makes recovery of
species impossible," says Suckling. (You can read the entire proposal,
a PDF file, here.)
Gutting the Endangered Species Act will only thicken the pall that has
hung over the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past six years,
Hallock says. "They [the Bush administration] don't want the
regulations to be effective. People in the agency are like a bunch of
whipped dogs," he says. "I think it's just unacceptable to go around
squashing other species; they're of incalculable benefit to us. The
optimism we had when this agency started has absolutely been dashed."
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/bush-administration-rewrite-of-endangered-species-act-regulations-would-gut-protections.html
Bush Administration Rewrite of Endangered Species Act Regulations
Would Gut Protections
Hush-hush proposal "a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's
most popular laws"
Washington, DC -- A secret draft of regulations that fundamentally
rewrite the Endangered Species Act was leaked to two environmental
organizations, which provided them to the press last night An article
in Salon quotes Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman saying, "The
proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act."
The changes are fiercely technical and complicated, but make future
listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts to the detriment
of protected species, virtually hand over administration of the act to
hostile states, and severely restrict habitat protections.
Many of the changes -- lifted from unsuccessful legislative proposals
from then-Senator (now Interior Secretary) Dirk Kempthorne and the
recently defeated congressman Richard Pombo -- are reactions to
policies and practices established as a result of litigation filed by
environmental organizations including Earthjustice.
"After the failure of these legislative proposals in the last
Congress, the Bush administration has opted to gut the Endangered
Species Act through the only avenue left open: administrative
regulations," said Hasselman. "This end-run around the will of
Congress and the American people will not succeed."
A major change would make it more difficult for a species to gain
protection, by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in
which to consider whether a species is likely to become extinct.
Instead of looking far enough ahead to be able to reasonably determine
whether a species could be heading for extinction, the new regulations
would drastically shorten the timeframe to either 20 years or 10
generations at the agency's discretion. For species with long
generations like killer whales and grizzly bears, this truncated view
of the future isn't nearly enough time to accurately predict whether
they are at-risk now.
"These draft regulations represent a total rejection of the values
held by the vast majority Americans: that we have a responsibility to
protect imperiled species and the special places they call home," said
Kate Freund, Legislative Associate at Earthjustice.
According to several sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service
quoted by Salon, hostility to the law within the agency has never been
so intense. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is
the worst it has ever been," one unnamed source is quoted as saying.
In addition, the proposal would allow projects by the Forest Service
and other agencies to proceed even if scientific evidence suggests
that the projects might drive species to extinction so long as the
rate of decline doesn't accelerate owing to the project.
The Bush administration's antipathy to the law is shown by the numbers
of species it has protected, in each case as the result of litigation
-- 57. By comparison, 253 species were listed during the Reagan
administration, 521 under Clinton, and 234 under Bush I.
The administration reportedly had expected to reveal the new
regulations in a few weeks. The draft regulations must be published in
the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final,
which is likely to be at least a year off.
Contact:
Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25
Arnold Walker
>
>>> Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Finally if Iran wants nuclear weapons, it has every right as a soverign
>>> nation to develop them.
>
>
> Kwag the dog wrote:
>> You are a fucking fool. Nations don't have rights, individuals do.
>
> Neither do corporations. But I find it very appealing the idea that
> AmeriKKKa has no right to exist.
>
> I agree. It is high time we Exterminate the AmeriKKKan state.
>
>
> Kwag the dog wrote:
>> Most individuals don't have any inviolable rights in Iran, the state
>> supports all manner of anti-social ills and therefore the Iranian
>> state is a misnomer.
>
> You mean the right to trial, Right to privacy, Right to food, water,
> housing, medical care and education, the right to not be tortured by your
> own government?
>
> AmeriKKKans don't have those rights either.
So how long is it before you pack your bags and go to one of them better
states.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
Arnold Walker
Exxon is Toxic Waste
In 1993 documents appeared in secret tobacco conspiracy file cabinets
about a fake science conference organized by the documented corrupt S.
Fred Singer. This meeting in Washington, DC, was facetiously titled
"Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process", funded by two
lung-killer industries tobacco and asbestos, and Lindzen was a
prominant hoaxer at this event. Lindzen has been paid in a CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY to defraud the public on the immanent dangers of Global
Warming, just as he participated with co-conspirators to aid Singer's
science hoaxes on behalf of tobacco and asbestos SERIAL MURDERER
CORPORATIONS.
Every single fact below can stand up in court in the trial of Lindzen
for FELONY CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Much more incriminating evidence will
be adduced at trial.
Google search engine reports 164 results looking for Richard S.
Lindzen AND "Washington Times" owned by the convicted felon Sun Myung
Moon. Moon has hosted many fake science conferences to exploit for
propaganda purposes. Singer apprenteced the fake science conference
back when Singer was President of the moonie "Washingon Institute for
Values in Public Policy". No records exist in public archives on what
Moon paid Singer as president of the Wash Inst, but here is a link
showing how generous Moon is to one successor president after Singer's
term -- $142,708/yr salary.
http://documents.guidestar.org/1998/521/293/1998-521293998-1-9.pdf
Moon is master of money laundering and subversive payoffs -- we will
never know who all he paid and how much they pocketed. We do know that
Google search engine finds 152 webpages linking Moon AND Lindzen.
There is an unseemly association between a science corruptor and a
known identified corrupt Lindzen: 314 webpage results for Lindzen AND
"Sun Myung Moon" OR "Washington Times".
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2025498346.html SUBJECT: The
Heidelberg Appeal Date: 23 Mar 1993
BACKGROUND
This coalition has its roots in the asbestos industry, but has become
a broad and independent movement in a littlc bit less than a year. We
are involved with the coalition through the French NMA, but we are
being discreet because some of the coalition members are concerned
about a "tobacco connection".
Our strategy is to continue discreetly supporting the coalition and
help it grow in size and credibility. The timing is particularly
opportune because of Bill Clinton's sympathy to the messages of the
coalition (see attached IHT article).
If you would like more information on how to help support thc
movement, pIease contact me or Tom Borelli on the US side.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502284041-4042.html
(Philip Morris Documents)
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C. Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages
Persons identified in pulling off this science hoax included: CORRUPT
Michael Fumento, CORRUPT Michael Gough, CORRUPT Robert Jastrow,
CORRUPT Michael Salomon, CORRUPT Robert Tollison, and the arch-
CORRUPTOR S. Fred Singer ringleader.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
Richard S. Lindzen
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology at
MIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used by
industry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant to
address the looming environmental crisis.
Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500
a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a
Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote,
entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific
Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]
According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- including
Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S.
Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science is
untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded
campaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeable
ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation.
Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through
the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's
scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion
focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have
effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]
External links
* Ross Gelbspan, "The Heat is On: The warming of the world's
climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.
* Daniel Grossman, Dissent in the Maelstrom,"Scientific American,
November 2001.
* "Richard Lindzen," Wikipedia.
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
THE HEAT IS ON:
The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial
by Ross Gelbspan.
from HARPER'S MAGAZINE/December, 1995
... The people who run the world's oil and coal companies know that
the march of science, and of political action, may be slowed by
disinformation. In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil
industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has
spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate
change. It expects to spend another $850,000 on the issue next year.
Similarly, the National Coal Association spent more than $700,000 on
the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993. In 1993 alone, the American
Petroleum Institute, just one of fifty-four industry members of the
GCC, paid $1.8 million to the public relations firm of Burson-
Marsteller partly in an effort to defeat a proposed tax on fossil
fuels. For perspective, this is only slightly less than the combined
yearly expenditures on global warming of the five major environmental
groups that focus on climate issues -- about $2.1 million, according
to officials of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists,
and the World Wildlife Fund.
For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics
-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr.
Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- who have proven
extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and
television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question
is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their
influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed
conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R.,
Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap"
and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to
those government science programs designed to monitor the health of
the planet.
Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the
environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the
skeptics -- Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling -- were hired as expert
witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400
million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.
[#1] ...
[#l In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce and
distribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which was
shown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within the
governments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promises
that a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasing
concentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areas
of desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of new
grasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by a
nurturing atmosphere. Unfortunately, it overlooks the bugs. Experts
note that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger an
explosion in the planet's insect population, leading to potentially
significant disruptions in food supplies from crop damage as well as
to a surge in insect-borne diseases. It appears that Western Fuels'
video fails to tell people what the termites in New Orleans may be
trying to tell them now.]
Arnold Walker
"Exxon is Toxic Waste" <Toxic...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message
news:1175067300.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
conspiracy?
Kent Death-Rag, Exxon's Crackhead Bumboy
Earth Party"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/26/opinion/main2608369.shtml
The GOP Vs. Global Warming
The New Republic: Why Are Republicans More Skeptical, Even As Evidence
Grows?
(The New Republic) This column was written by Jonathan Chait. Last
year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and
House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the
respondents, 23 percent said yes, 77 percent said no. In the year
since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount
of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide,
finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90
percent.
So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results?
Only 13 percent of Republicans agreed that global warming has been
proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans
are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional
testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from
GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on
global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax
cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader,
it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected
Republican.
How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just
tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them
are. Leading global warming skeptic Representative Joe L. Barton (R-
Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the
Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his
relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.
But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of
GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry
has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the
last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated - and more depressing: A small number of
hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the
thinking for the whole conservative movement.
Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course,
neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend
to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a
tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming
professional consensus.
National Review magazine, with its popular Web site, is a perfect
example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming,
or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution.
Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty
clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate
science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore
as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their
thinking on the issue.
Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted
aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that
Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John
Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that
humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican
refused and was denied a seat.
Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. and Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich.,
both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee.
Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this
case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican
researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global
warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global
warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood
lefties.
The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative
figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank
and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the
Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the
phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming
understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their
favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral
element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on
global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The
technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case
for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you
couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is
perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah,
Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to
those hippies!
By Jonathan Chait
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's
top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and
analysis.
Vendicar Decarian
>> You mean the right to trial, Right to privacy, Right to food, water,
>> housing, medical care and education, the right to not be tortured by your
>> own government?
>>
>> AmeriKKKans don't have those rights either.
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> So how long is it before you pack your bags and go to one of them better
> states.
I escaped from the AmeriKKKan prison a while back.. Arnold my little tipsy
whipsy AmeriKKKan drinken buddy.....
Arnold Walker
Must be a living hell such as it is......
Arnold Walker
"Kent Death-Rag, Exxon's Crackhead Bumboy" <Retie...@h2-pv.us> wrote in
message news:1175071885....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> The GOP Vs. Global Warming :: Why do they want to be the "Kill the
> Earth Party"?
socialist message.
And have done a bang up job of just that......
Read below for details....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
Crackpot Lemmings Goosestepping Off Cliffs
Arnold Walker
"Crackpot Lemmings Goosestepping Off Cliffs"
<Crackpot...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message
news:1175114455....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
Vendicar Decarian
>> I escaped from the AmeriKKKan prison a while back.. Arnold my little
>> tipsy
>> whipsy AmeriKKKan drinken buddy.....
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> At that would be an improvement over your present state.
> Must be a living hell such as it is......
Compared with the AmeriKKKan prison state, it's paradise man... Pure
paradise...
Vendicar Decarian
>>
>> The Israeli people however regularly violate International law, in their
>> various campaign to murder as many Palestinians as possible.
>>
>> Once Israel is wiped off the map, the wold will be a better place.
>>
>> I think Canada would be willing to provide a northern island for the
>> resettlement of the Israeli people.
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
> Of like a good Demon-crat you would believe that.
Like- OhMyGawwwed. YaeKnow....
Drinking again Arnold?
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Simple the earth party wants to kill the planet...while promoting thier
> socialist message.
Capitulate or die Arnold. That is your choice.
Please choose death.
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> And the socialist message continues....
I didn't know that outing Lindzen as a traitor to humanity was a form of
Socialism.
You seem to be working with your own set of definitions and words here
Arnold.
Get off the booze.
Arnold Walker
Of sourse real and imagined conspiracies could not possiblably be a
socialist lie game.
Nobody needs the BS.....
Arnold Walker
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
wrote:
> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pfFOh.12618$Sm.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>
>
>
> >> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> "Areas" have no arms or neurons and hence can not use anything.
>
> >>> The Israeli people however regularly violate International law, in
> >>> their various campaign to murder as many Palestinians as possible.
>
> >>> Once Israel is wiped off the map, the wold will be a better place.
>
> >>> I think Canada would be willing to provide a northern island for the
> >>> resettlement of the Israeli people.
>
> >> Of like a good Demon-crat you would believe that.
>
> > Like- OhMyGawwwed. YaeKnow....
>
> > Drinking again Arnold?
>
> You really need to get your head out of your rear......oh brainless one.
Why? Are you anxious for your turn to stick your head in?
FRED SINGER'S SEPPtic Tank
Stink tank has accumulated nice nearly $1 million retirement fund for
Singer any time the compliant board decides to bestow it on him. Has
interesting portfolio of stocks donated over the years, looking at
their IRS 990 report forms.
Besides listing three dead guys on it's board of science advisors
(presumably whom have advised by seance for 3, 5 and 7 years now), the
industry puppets on board are interesting.
Board of Science Advisors
* Bruce N. Ames (1928- ) Known tobacco shill on the payroll of
British-American Tobacco. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95
Participated in corrupt operation of ICSE in Paris, 2003. George C.
Marshall Inst., CFACT, Reason Foundation, SEPP. Signed Liezieg,
Heidelberg Appeal, OISM petition. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco,
convicted racketeer, front group for science crimes) Science Advisor.
* C.J.F. Böttcher (1915- ) Heidelberg Appeal scam, HAN, ESEF.
Funded by Shell Oil and two Dutch auto front groups, RJ Reyonlds
Tobacco.. Signed Liepzig. Founding member of The Club of Rome often
ridiculed by rightwingers for alarmism.
* Tor Ragnar Gerholm (1925- ) Moonie like Singer, ESEF fraud
operator, signed Leipzig Declaration.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
* Michael J. Higatsberger (1924-2004) Moonie like Singer. Leipzig
Declaration.
* Henry R. Linden (1920s- ) first president of the Gas Research
Institute, received Exxon-sponsored Storch award as far back as 1967.
Leipzig Declaration.
* Sir William Mitchell (1925-2002) Involved in ESEF fraud
organization. Leipzig Declaration.
* William A. Nierenberg (1919-2000) was a member of the Board of
Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute run by tobacco racketeer
Fred Seitz, board member of SEPP. Leipzig Declaration.
* Michel Salomon (1927- ) Corrupt head of ICSE science fraud
operation founded in Paris in 1993, particpant in several Singer fraud
operations. ESEF crook.
* Chauncey Starr (1912- ) founded the 'Electric Power Research
Institute', researching coal power, signed the Leipzig Declaration on
Global Climate Change "As independent scientists concerned with
atmospheric and climate problems ..."
SEPPtic Tank's Board of Directors:
Board of Directors
* S. Fred Singer, (1924- ) President. In a September 24, 1993,
sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research
on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the
American Gas Association. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco front group
for science crimes) Science Advisor.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95
* Frederick Seitz,(1911- ) Chairman. Tobacco shill once had his
likeness used for an RJ Reynold Tobacco ad campaign "9 out of 10
Doctors prefer Camels". Received over $660,000 (on the books, under
the table?) from RJR convicted racketeers over 16 years. Headed George
C. Marshall crime organization. Participated in multiple Singer frauds
since 1993. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco front group for science
crimes) Science Advisor.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=367
* Charles Gelman, (1931- ) Super kook, fined $1 million dollars,
plus $4 million clean-up for 1,4-dioxane pollution from his factory.
Sued and attacked environmentalist who made him clean up his mess.
* David L. Hill (1919- ) (officially replaced in 2000 by Mark M.
Brandsdorfer [14] although the 990 form for 1998 already mentioned
Mark Brandsdorfer instead of Mr. Hill) This Mark M. Brandsdorfer,
attorney at law for an organized crime operation:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Singer%20threat.pdf
Sugardaddies to Singer-Seitz-Ames include the Killer Koch Brother of
Koch Industries:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=150
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=159
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=161
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=162
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=93
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=114
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Of sourse real and imagined conspiracies could not possiblably be a
> socialist lie game.
Unlike Arnold here, I do not believe that the worlds scientific community
is involved in a global plot to enslave the world under a one world
government socialist slave state.
Wooo Hoooo... I can already smell the booze on Arnold's breath.
Vendicar Decarian
>> Like- OhMyGawwwed. YaeKnow....
>>
>> Drinking again Arnold?
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> You really need to get your head out of your rear......oh brainless one.
Meanwhile....
ScienceDaily: Heatwave On The Top Of The World
A new study by French researchers from the Laboratory of Glaciology and
Geophysics of the Environment (LGGE, CNRS / Université Joseph Fourier,
Grenoble, France) and the Laboratory of Sciences of the Cliamte and the
Environment (LSCE / IPSL, CEA / CNRS / Université de Versailles
Saint-Quentin, France), in collaboration with Chinese, Russian and
American researchers, proves that the recent warming has also affected the
ice cap on Mount Everest, in the heart of the Himalayas. This result was
published on February 7, 2007 in the European Journal "Climate of the
Past".
Relatively little is known about climate change in the Himalayas and the
Tibetan plateau. There are very few meteorological stations, and
instrumental records from glaciers, lakes or tree growth rings are rare
and difficult to interpret. However, in 2001 and 2002, Chinese scientists
drilled three ice cores in the eastern summit of the East Rongbuk glacier
that covers the north pass of Mount Everest, at 6518 meters above sea
level. These ice cores were analyzed in collaboration with the LGGE and
the LSCE, and they have shown that a new climate marker exists, the ice
core gas content, which can reconstruct the changes in summer temperatures
on this very high site.
At these altitudes, the surface snow partially melts in the summer and the
melt water percolates1 through the snow cover to refreeze deep down. This
process affects the density and size of air bubbles contained in the ice,
that is, its gas content. So the gas content is directly related to the
intensity of the summer ice melt. By measuring accurately the gas content
throughout two of the three ice cores taken from the top of Everest,
researchers have been able to follow the changes over time, going right
back to 2,000 years ago. They noted a very marked decrease in the quantity
of gas trapped in the 20th century ice, compared with the content in older
ice, which reflects recent increases in the summer melts on the glacier
surface.
Although the team has not as yet been able to quantify exactly the
temperature change over time using this new marker of trapped gas, their
research clearly shows that global warming has also affected the ice cap
on top of the world.