A New Golden Age: Russia Looks Forward to Global Warming
d....@hotmail.com
http://worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=632
A New Golden Age: Russia Looks Forward to Global Warming
Sonja Margolina | 15 Mar 2007
World Politics Watch
Fertile fields where there was once barren tundra; the Arctic free of
ice; unhindered access to mineral resources -- in Russia, there is
increasing hope that the country will emerge as a winner from the
catastrophe of climate change. For the northern giant with millions of
cubic kilometers of permafrost soil, global warming could bring
enormous national benefit. The other countries around the North Pole
are likewise beginning to imagine the coming of a new Golden Age. On
this view, a Union of Nordic Nations might be the strategic alliance
of the future, which thanks to the warming climate could keep pace
with China and India in global competition.
It is undisputed that Russia, the Earth's largest country, has a key
role to play in the battle against greenhouse gases. It was only when
the Russian parliament -- in contrast to the United States -- ratified
the Kyoto Protocol on Nov. 18, 2004, that the treaty to reduce the
emission of greenhouse gases could come into effect. The Protocol
requires that Russia's greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by some
17.4 percent by 2012, as compared to 1990 levels. Since the collapse
of the Soviet Union already brought with it an emissions reduction of
some 30 percent, Russia is in the comfortable position of not having
to place any particular restrictions on its currently booming economy.
According to the estimate of the German Institute for Economic
Research, the country could, moreover, earn up to $20 billion through
the sale of emission rights.
In light of melting icebergs and glaciers and the expected rising of
the coastal sea level, in light of droughts, devastating hurricanes,
and other destructive weather phenomena, global climate change has
become a political theme even in the United States, and many
commentators are demanding still stricter emission targets than those
contained in the Kyoto Protocol. But in Russia other voices are making
themselves heard.
Thus, for example, Georgi Grusa, one of Russia's leading
climatologists, believes that even just "a medium term prognosis on
climactic trends is not possible, because it is completely unclear how
the factors will behave that influence climate change." Predictions
concerning key factors like volcanic eruptions and solar activity are
hardly possible. According to Yuri Golubchikov of the Geography
Department at Moscow State University, the connection between human-
induced carbon dioxide emissions and global warming is anything but
proven. He believes the primary cause for warming is to be found
rather in the periodic oscillation of ocean temperatures. "The upper
levels of the ocean contain 57 to 60 times more carbon dioxide than
the air," Golubchikov calculates, "If the temperature of the ocean
rises a little, gigantic amounts of carbon dioxide are released into
the atmosphere through the evaporation of water. The total volume of
this release and absorption of carbon dioxide is five times higher
than the industrial emission of carbon dioxide."
Russia is also a stronghold of partisans of the "solar energy theory."
Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory ties
the current warming of the Earth to a persistent increase in the total
energy generated by solar radiation that lasted for virtually the
entire 20th Century. According to Abdussamatov, there had been no
comparably powerful solar radiation as that observed in the 20th
Century for over 600 years previously and the increase in solar
activity reached a high point in the 1990s. It is precisely in this
period that an accelerated increase in the average temperature of the
Earth's surface was recorded. At the moment, Abdussamatov suggests,
the intensity of the sun's radiant energy is in the downward phase of
a century-long cycle: "In 50 years, the earth's inhabitants will be
faced with long, severe winters and cool summers."
It is not only rational considerations that make Russians skeptical of
the European belief that human technology can move mountains. In
Russian history, nature and violence have in fact always triumphed
over fragile human creations. So, it is not surprising that doubts
about human omnipotence as climate changer and the emphasis on cosmic
factors, which are always more powerful than the most powerful human
technology, lead Russian scientists to call into question the sense
and spirit of the Kyoto Protocol. Humanity, the marine scientist
Alexander Lisitzyn affirms, "is always too weak to have a serious
impact on the climate."
It is hard to say which attitude is wiser: Europe's hyperactivity and
the putting in place of "climate-saving" programs that cost billions
of dollars or the Eastern fatalism that waits patiently for the polar
ice to melt and the frozen tundra to be rendered fertile.
Sonja Margolina was born in Moscow and studied biology and ecology.
Since 1986, she has been based in Berlin, where she works as a
freelance journalist. This article first appeared in German in the
March 1 issue of Die Weltwoche (Issue 09/07). The English translation
is by John Rosenthal.
Roger Coppock
> From:http://worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=632
>
> A New Golden Age: Russia Looks Forward to Global Warming
> Sonja Margolina | 15 Mar 2007
> World Politics Watch
>
This is a new one.
> He [ Georgi Grusa, one of Russia's leading climatologists ]
> believes the primary cause for warming is to be found
> rather in the periodic oscillation of ocean temperatures. "The upper
> levels of the ocean contain 57 to 60 times more carbon dioxide than
> the air," Golubchikov calculates, "If the temperature of the ocean
> rises a little, gigantic amounts of carbon dioxide are released into
> the atmosphere through the evaporation of water. The total volume of
> this release and absorption of carbon dioxide is five times higher
> than the industrial emission of carbon dioxide."
Two problems:
-- This doesn't explain the change in the radiocarbon and
radio oxygen ratios in atmospheric CO2, the Seuss effect.
-- No driver for the ocean's oscillation is explained here.
http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info
> Russia is also a stronghold of partisans of the "solar energy theory."
Crackpot , ignore.
d....@hotmail.com
> -- This doesn't explain the change in the radiocarbon and
> radio oxygen ratios in atmospheric CO2, the Seuss effect.
Oxygen has three natural isotopes O16, O17 and O18. None of them are
radio isotopes. I think you may be refering to temperature dependent
biological effects that may alter oxygen isotope ratios in biological
matter and subsequent fossils. But this is not relevant.
Carbon has two natural stable isotopes C12 and C13. Radiocarbon C14 is
produced in the atmosphere from N14 by neutron capture. C14 has a half-
life of 5730 years. The 'Suess effect' (1957) refers to dilution of
atmospheric carbon by C12 and C13. This is often attrubuted to the
burning of fossil fuels but cement production and volcanoes are also
contributing factors for ancient carbon.
The literature surrounding the "Seuss effect" is flakey. A better
conception can be derived as follows:
" In 1958 Hessel de Vries showed that the concentration of carbon-14
in the atmosphere varies slightly over time. For the most accurate
work, the temporal variations are compensated by means of calibration
curves. When these curves are used, their accuracy and shape are the
factors that determine the accuracy and age obtained for a given
sample."
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
"Hessel de Vries, a Dutch physicist at the University of Groningen,
furthered the detection methods and applications of radiocarbon dating
to a variety of sciences. He has been called "the unsung hero of
radiocarbon dating" by Willis.
In 1958, de Vries showed that there were systematic anomalies in the
carbon-14 dates of tree rings. His explanation was that the
concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere had varied over time by
up to 1%. He hypothesized that the variation might be explained by (a)
something connected with climate, (b) that it was not created in the
atmosphere at a uniform rate due to variations in the Earth's magnetic
field, or (c) a cause lay in the Sun itself."
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessel_de_Vries
If a cold ocean absorbs atmospheric CO2 and then releases it 50 years
later when it is warmer, this won't change the isotope ratios in any
measurable way.
> -- No driver for the ocean's oscillation is explained here.
A failure in imagination? Like the atmosphere, the ocean has
horizontal and vertical currents at the surface and in the deep.
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
> A failure in imagination? Like the atmosphere, the ocean has
> horizontal and vertical currents at the surface and in the deep.
Crackpot , ignore.
Vendicar Decarian
<d....@hotmail.com> wrote
> In 1958, de Vries showed that there were systematic anomalies in the
> carbon-14 dates of tree rings. His explanation was that the
> concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere had varied over time by
> up to 1%. He hypothesized that the variation might be explained by (a)
> something connected with climate, (b) that it was not created in the
> atmosphere at a uniform rate due to variations in the Earth's magnetic
> field, or (c) a cause lay in the Sun itself."
A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society -
Englands
foremost Science Establishment
Misleading arguments 4.
-----------------------
The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of greenhouse
gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction
of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to
the climate.
Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing
than increases in greenhouse gases.
---
About half of the solar energy entering the top of the Earth's atmosphere
eventually reaches the surface where it is absorbed. Much of the solar
energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface and then released as infra-red
radiation, some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water
vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. The greenhouse gases act like a blanket
over the surface of the Earth, keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees
warmer than it otherwise would be, which is a phenomenon known as 'the
greenhouse effect'.
Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
enhance the greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming. It
has been long established that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infra-red
radiation. The IPCC 2001 report pointed out that carbon dioxide is "the
dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas", and is responsible for more than
half the warming due to changes in atmospheric concentrations.
Based on direct analysis of gases found trapped in cores of polar ice, it is
known that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for several
thousands of years before 1750 was about 280 parts per million. Between 1750
and 2000, during which industrialisation has occurred, the concentration
rose by about 31% to 368 parts per million. The IPCC report noted that the
current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been
exceeded during the past 420,000 years and that "the rate of increase over
the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years".
It has been claimed that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide is actually a consequence of climate change, rather than a cause.
The IPCC report pointed out that chemical analyses of the carbon dioxide
show that the increase in the atmosphere, and an
accompanying decrease in oxygen concentrations, are primarily due to the
burning of fossil
fuels and deforestation.
Although some carbon dioxide taken up and released by oceans or land, it
stressed that the average rate of increase in concentrations in the
atmosphere since 1980 has been about 0.4% per year and that this is due to
emissions. It stated "Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are due
to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to
land-use change, especially deforestation".
A number of other factors are known to influence climate and cause change,
particularly volcanic eruptions, variations in the energy from the sun and
particles released into the
atmosphere from both natural sources and human activities. Particles in the
atmosphere reduce the amount of energy from the sun that reaches the Earth's
surface, and therefore cause a cooling effect..
The IPCC has studied evidence of changes in these various factors and their
likely influence on the global average temperature. It found that the
variations over the 20th century can only be understood by taking all
factors, both natural and human, into account.
Land use changes such as the spread or shrinkage of forest areas can also
contribute to changes in temperature. The loss of forests can exert a
cooling effect by increasing the
reflectivity of the land surface, which means lower amounts of solar
radiation are absorbed. The IPCC 2001 report noted that the overall effect
of land use changes since pre-industrial times has been to produce cause
cooling, and that this has mainly been due to the replacement at high
latitudes of snow-covered forests by open, snow-covered areas. The report
noted that the level of understanding of the overall effect of land use
changes was lower than for other factors affecting global temperatures.
The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early
part of
the 20th century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a
decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot
explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC
concluded that there is "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The
report pointed out that natural factors on their own would have produced an
overall drop in global average temperatures.
A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature, found
that
the level of solar activity during the past 70 years has been "exceptional"
when considered over the period of the last 11,400 years. However, they
concluded that "although the rarity of the current episode of high average
sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual
climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong
warming during the past three decades".
Souls Black as Coal
wrote:
> <d...@hotmail.com> wrote
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Misleading arguments 4.
How appropriate...
>A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature, found
>that
>the level of solar activity during the past 70 years has been "exceptional"
>when considered over the period of the last 11,400 years. However, they
>concluded that "although the rarity of the current episode of high average
>sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual
>climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
>variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong
>warming during the past three decades".
From the referenced Solanki paper, where you will discover that the
authors of this paper apparently limited their analyses to:
"Various processes have been invoked by which the inconstant Sun
can influence the troposphere: (1) changes in the energy input
into the Earth's atmosphere through variations in the total solar
irradiance, (2) changes in stratospheric chemistry through
variations of solar UV irradiance, and (3) changes in cloud cover
induced by modulations in the cosmic ray flux produced by
variations in the Sun's open magnetic flux."
That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
And additionally:
The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
(1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
1970).
That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
Retief
Exxon's Dick Pumping Bawana's Mouth
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature,
>>found
>>that
From your reference....
"We have shown
that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature
We have shown
that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature
rise since 1970 through any of the channels considered
here. We believe that even this fraction is too high. Solar
total irradiance variations could be responsible for up to
50% of the temperature increase since 1970 only if the
intercalibration between different instruments carried out by
Willson [1997] is correct"
Ahahahahah Retief.... Yet another one of your references actually claims the
opposite to what you are claiming.
Ahahahahahahaha You Pathetic, RepubliKKKan Loser....
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
"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
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature,
>>>found
>>>that
>
>From your reference....
And thus Scott Nudds (aka VD), having determined that death threats,
insults, red herrings and numerous other logical fallacies have been
ineffective, he now resorts to the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad
nauseam", repeatedly posting his discredited claims...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam
Let us review VD's claim once again:
>"We have shown
>
>that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all
>
>the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
>
>responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature
>
>We have shown
>
>that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all
>
>the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
>
>responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature
>
>rise since 1970 through any of the channels considered
>
>here. We believe that even this fraction is too high. Solar
>
>total irradiance variations could be responsible for up to
>
>50% of the temperature increase since 1970 only if the
>
>intercalibration between different instruments carried out by
>
>Willson [1997] is correct"
The reader will note that the authors of this paper (Solanki, et. al)
Retief Turd, Exxon Turds
> That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
> solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
>
> Retief
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing
that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had
opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence --
these are the ones that were not excluded.
TASSC "Global Warming"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Global+Warming%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Singer, F."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Singer%2C+F.%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Lindzen, R"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Lindzen%2C+R%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Michaels, P"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Michaels%2C+P%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick J. Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+J.+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Science & Environmental Policy Project"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Science+%26+Environmental+Policy+Project%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=521
#596 - A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
A new study concludes that this has been the warmest century in 600
years, and that the hottest years during this century have been 1990,
1995, and 1997.[1,2] This is further evidence that global warming is
upon us, and that humans are contributing to it by burning coal and
oil. (See REHW #430, #466.) "Our conclusion was that the warming of
the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of
greenhouse gases by humans and not [by] any of the natural factors,"
say Michael E. Mann, principal author of the new study.[1]
The global temperature varies as time passes because of natural
changes in sunlight reaching the Earth, dust from volcanoes (which
reflects sunlight back into space), and changing amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere.
So-called greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide [CO2], but also
methane and a few others that are less important) allow sunlight to
strike the Earth but don't allow heat to escape back into space as
readily, thus trapping heat near the surface, just as the glass roof
on a greenhouse does. Scientists have recognized the existence of this
"greenhouse effect" for about 100 years and they know that, sooner or
later, increasing the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere
must warm the planet. Thus scientists don't debate whether greenhouse
gases will cause global warming. They debate when it will be
noticeable, how big the warming will be, and what its consequences
might be.
During the past 100 years, humans burning coal and oil have increased
the atmosphere's concentration of carbon dioxide [CO2] --the main
greenhouse gas --by 25%, and the concentration is still rising.
Actual temperature measurements only go back about 150 years, so
temperatures earlier than that must be inferred from tree rings,
corals and fossils in the oceans, deposits left by glaciers, the
chemical composition of ancient ice at the poles, and fossilized
pollen found in lake sediments. The new study, published in the
British journal NATURE, uses many of these techniques to reconstruct
the Earth's temperature back to the year 1400 A.D.[2]
The new study bolsters the consensus reached in 1996 by an
overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, that (a) global
warming is probably noticeable now; and (b) human activities are
probably contributing to the rise in the planet's average temperature.
That consensus conclusion was published in the second Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[3]
which is an office of the United Nations Environment Programme and the
World Meteorological Organization.
For their part, the coal and oil corporations are not taking this
scientific consensus lying down. They are fighting back with a multi-
million dollar public relations plan that was recently leaked to the
NEW YORK TIMES.[4] These corporations stand to lose by the global
climate-change agreement reached last December 11 in Kyoto, Japan. The
Kyoto agreement binds the U.S. to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions
to 7% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. For a country like
the U.S., which has steadily rising emissions, the Kyoto agreement
will require cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would
otherwise be by the year 2012. (See REHW #577.)
In an attempt to undermine the Kyoto agreement, the energy
corporations plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the
industry's views of climate science and to train them in public
relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians, and the
public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify
controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's
heat near Earth."[4] The plan is being spearheaded by Joe Walker, a
public relations representative of the American Petroleum Institute.
The scientific talent for the public relations campaign is being
recruited by Frederick Seitz, who is a physicist, not a climatologist,
but who has an impressive scientific resume as former president of the
American Physical Society, former president of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), and president emeritus of Rockefeller University. Dr.
Seitz is also distinguished by being one of the last remaining
scientists who insist that humans have not altered the stratospheric
ozone layer, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
He is currently associated with two libertarian think tanks, the
George C. Marshall Institute and the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (see www.marshall.org, www.tassc.org, and www.junkscience.com).
Dr. Seitz injected himself into the climate debate forcefully by
attacking the IPCC just days after publication of the IPCC's consensus
conclusion that humans were probably contributing to global warming.
Writing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL June 12, 1996, Dr. Seitz called the
IPCC report a "major deception on global warming." He accused IPCC
scientists of the most "disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process" that he had ever witnessed. And he accused one particular
scientist, Benjamin Santer, of having made "unauthorized changes" to
the IPCC report for political purposes. It turned out that Seitz had
not attended any of the IPCC meetings, and he had not contacted Santer
to find out whether the changes to the IPCC document were "authorized"
or not. It also turned out that all of Seitz's charges were wrong --
the IPCC report had been peer-reviewed by roughly one thousand
qualified scientists and all of the writing in the final report was
fully authorized.[5]
Dr. Seitz and his associates at the George C. Marshall Institute are
now preparing to release a petition that they reportedly sent to
"virtually every scientist in every field" in the U.S.[6] There are 10
million people with undergraduate degrees in science in the U.S., and
half a million with science Ph.D.s. Of these, 15,000 science graduates
and 6000 with Ph.D. degrees have reportedly signed the petition, which
rejects the Kyoto agreement and argues that increasing levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the planet. The mass
mailing to scientists included a copy of an article formatted to look
as if it had been published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. It was not. The
article, which had been neither peer-reviewed nor published, argued
that the release of more carbon dioxide "will help to maintain and
improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all
people." The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) has
branded the exercise "a deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific
community with misinformation on the subject of climate change."
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the energy corporations plan to spend
$5 million over the next two years to "maximize the impact of
scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media, and
other key audiences." Their plan calls for spending $600,000 (not
including costs of advertising) on a media campaign to influence
science writers, editors, columnists, and TV network correspondents
using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited
specifically "to inject credible science and scientific accountability
into the climate science debate, thereby raising questions about and
undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'" The energy
corporations say they intend to provide "a one-stop resource for
members of Congress, the media industry, and all others concerned."
This latest plan to "educate" Americans about global warming will be
paid for by Exxon, Chevron, and other supporters of the American
Petroleum Institute. Previous similar attempts in recent years have
been funded by Exxon, Shell Oil, Unocal, ARCO, the British Coal
Corporation, the German Coal Mining Association, and Cyprus Minerals,
a western mining company that is the single biggest funder of the so-
called Wise Use anti-environmental movement in the U.S.[7]
Who knows? With enough money, it may be possible to convince Congress
and the media that global warming is not happening, despite the
evidence, which is considerable (see REHW #430, #466):
** Average global air temperatures have risen this century.
** The oceans have warmed this century;
** The level of the oceans has been rising this century because water
expands as it warms;
** Many glaciers have shrunk this century in response to warming;
** Plants are moving upward on mountainsides as temperatures rise;
** Rainfall --particularly torrential rainfall --has been increasing
this century as global warming has put more water vapor into the air;
** Floods are increasing because of more rainfall;
** In England, where climatic records reach back several hundred
years, spring has been arriving earlier in recent decades;
** The IPCC and the World Health Organization say that global warming
is expanding the range of mosquitoes that carry malaria, yellow fever,
and dengue fever, a trend that will put millions of additional humans
at risk from these diseases. (See REHW #466.)
** Computer models predict that global warming will be accompanied by
more storms and more intense storms, and, in fact, this has been
happening. To protect itself the U.S. insurance industry in 1996
stopped insuring certain storm-prone areas on the eastern seaboard and
along the Gulf coast.[8]
Already severe storms are hurting people in California, Alabama, the
upper midwest, and New England, to mention only U.S. locations where
extreme weather events have struck in recent months. Real people are
suffering. Affected individuals, and all taxpayers, are paying large
costs. If the world scientific consensus is correct, this will
continue until our use of coal and oil is cut by 60% or 70% and the
atmosphere can stabilize again. At present there is no possibility --
none--of achieving such drastic cuts because the oil and coal
companies are too powerful.
Global warming is the most important problem we face because it has
the potential to disrupt every part of the global ecosystem. It is
also the most important because it promises to reveal the fundamental
flaws in the permissive way we treat corporations: (1) we give them
the free- speech protections of the Bill of Rights, allowing them to
spend millions on disinformation campaigns aimed at maintaining a
harmful status quo. And (2) we allow them to manipulate our most basic
democratic institutions by pumping millions of dollars into election
campaigns. It seems clear that if we are to solve the global warming
problem, these two practices will have to change.
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
=====
[1] William K. Stevens, "New Evidence Finds This is the Warmest
Century in 600 years," NEW YORK TIMES April 28, 1998, pg. C3.
[2] Michael E. Mann and others, "Global-scale temperature patterns and
climate forcing over the past six centuries," NATURE Vol. 392 (April
23, 1998), pgs. 779-787. See also, Gabriele Hegerl, "The past as a
guide to the future," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 23, 1998), pgs. 758-759.
[3] J.J. Houghton and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE 1995: THE
SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1996).
[4] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate
Treaty," NEW YORK TIMES April 26, 1998, pgs. A1, A24.
[5] Paul N. Edwards and Stephen H. Schneider, "The 1995 IPCC Report:
Broad Consensus or 'Scientific Cleansing,' ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE No. 1
(Fall 1997), pgs. 3-9. ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE is published by the Center
for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020. E-mail:
ecofa...@bing.stanford.edu; telephone (415) 723-5924; fax: (415) 723-
5920.
[6] Colin Macilwain, "Petition strengthens hand of global warming
skeptics," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 16, 1998), pg. 639.
[7] Ross Gelbspan, "Hot Air on Global Warming; Science and Academia in
the Service of the Fossil Fuel Industry," MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Vol.
18, No. 11 (November 1997), pgs. 14-17.
[8] Joseph B. Treaster, "Insurer Curbing Sales of Policies in Storm
Areas," NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 1996, pgs. A1, D6.
Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; corporations;
kyoto; insurance industry; libertarians; think tanks; ipcc;
raylopez99
>
> The reader will note that the authors of this paper (Solanki, et. al)
> limited their analyses to:
>
> "Various processes have been invoked by which the inconstant Sun
> can influence the troposphere: (1) changes in the energy input
> into the Earth's atmosphere through variations in the total solar
> irradiance, (2) changes in stratospheric chemistry through
> variations of solar UV irradiance, and (3) changes in cloud cover
> induced by modulations in the cosmic ray flux produced by
> variations in the Sun's open magnetic flux."
>
> That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
> soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
>
> And additionally:
>
> The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
> (1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
> quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
> with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
> 1970).
>
> That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
> solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
Retief--you are going down the futile but instructive path I followed
too. Try as you might, you'll find that the Arrhenius CO2 model, as
modified, though simplistic, is the best model for explaining the
overall rise in temperatures since the start of the Industrial Age--
and the one forcing variable is man made greenhouse gases. While it's
true that clouds and aerosols are the weak link in the model, but they
don't disprove the model. The model is backwards looking and does a
good job of fitting the data (and is thus adaptable to the data). You
are fighting a hydra--chop off one head, and another two spring up.
Better to make a tactical retreat and fight the battle that Dr.
Lindzen and other AGW skeptics are fighting (and which I have
adopted), which is that the *effects* of GW are not well known and
could turn out to be trivial (e.g., the IPCC, in a report to be
released this year, is expected to halve the mean sea level rise due
to AGW over the next 100 years; at the lower bound it will be a mere 2
inches).
RL
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
> Better to make a tactical retreat and fight the battle that Dr.
> Lindzen and other AGW skeptics are fighting (and which I have
> adopted), which is that the *effects* of GW are not well known and
> could turn out to be trivial (e.g., the IPCC, in a report to be
> released this year, is expected to halve the mean sea level rise due
> to AGW over the next 100 years; at the lower bound it will be a mere 2
> inches).
>
> RL
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing
that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had
opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence --
these are the ones that were not excluded.
It confirms the activist website which merely quotes public knowledge.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> And thus Scott Nudds (aka VD), having determined that death threats,
> insults, red herrings and numerous other logical fallacies have been
> ineffective, he now resorts to the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad
> nauseam", repeatedly posting his discredited claims...
Ah... Discredited claims like this one.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
9 December 2006
For more information:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.
These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.
The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies' statement
(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).
Vendicar Decarian
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam
>
>>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>>all
>>the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible
>>for
>>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>>high."
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> The reader will note that the authors of this paper limited their
> analyses to:
>
> "Various processes have been invoked by which the inconstant Sun
> can influence the troposphere: (1) changes in the energy input
> into the Earth's atmosphere through variations in the total solar
> irradiance, (2) changes in stratospheric chemistry through
> variations of solar UV irradiance, and (3) changes in cloud cover
> induced by modulations in the cosmic ray flux produced by
> variations in the Sun's open magnetic flux."
Ahahahahaha... Poor little Retief. Now resorting to trying to discredit
the very paper he tried to use as a reference to support his failed claim
that the Sun is responsible for Global Warming.
Again from Retief's own reference.....
>>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>>all the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been
>>responsible for
>>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>>high."
Fucking Stupid, Scientifically Illiterate, Scum Sucking Loser Retief.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
> soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
Ahahahahaha.. If you didn't like the results of the paper, then why did
you use it as a reference?
Ahahahahahahahahahah... You didn't even read it did you?
Ahahahahahah... Just posted the reference because the title sounded good.
Ahahahahahahahahah
Fucking Stupid, Scientifically Illiterate, Scum Sucking Loser Retief.
Shitbag Adulterer McCain
(Climatology) DOCTOR Richard Lindzen speaks about passive smoke and
health, Next up, prominent ROOFER discusses faults in modern Quantum
Mechanics Theory.
=========================
Philip Morris
Passive Smoking: How Great A Hazard?
Date: 19910700/P
Length: 48 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046323437-3484.html
Page 36: cyb09e00
Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has
emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on
scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave
society with a resource of some importance diminished. The
implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to
the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political
needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound
scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific
methodologies. Such has not always been the case with environmental
tobacco smoke.
=========================
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.]