The ABCD's of Climate Change -- ANYTHING But Carbon Dioxide
Cleopatra_Enterprise_Institute-Queen_of-DeNile
industries. And the automobile industry.
And we LOVE the coal, gas, oil, and automobile industries, don't we?.
So blame sunspots -- blame the Klingons - blame demons from another
dimension -- blame Satan -- or Osama Bin Laden -- or blame "the Jews"
-- blame the Chinese or white people or black people or Hispanic
immigration --
but NEVER, EVER BLAME CARBON DIOXIDE.
There's just too much capital investment at stake for carbon to be the
problem.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> And we LOVE the coal, gas, oil, and automobile industries, don't we?.
We LOVE the electricity, the mobility, and the machinery that make us
the things we need and want.
> but NEVER, EVER BLAME CARBON DIOXIDE.
Except for secondary effects, sure, I blame carbon dioxide for global
cooling.
> There's just too much capital investment at stake for carbon to be the
> problem.
That's probably true.
z
I find it hard to believe how anybody believes whatever the current
story is of the folks who ten years ago were saying the earth was not
warming at all; then that it was warming, but satellite measurements
did not show the atmosphere warming; then that satellite measurements
show the atmosphere warming, but it's definitely due to solar output;
now that it's warming, but it's definitely due to cosmic rays. If I
were the jury in a criminal case, i wouldn't believe the guy whose
story changed radically during the trial versus the guy whose story
was pretty much the same but became more detailed and precise as he
testified more.
Of course, they will tell you that once upon a time 30 years ago they
read an article in the newspaper titled "scientists fear ice age due
to particulates in atmosphere", back before we cleaned up the
particulates in the atmosphere, and therefore these climatology
chicken littles change their tune too much to be believed. Then they
will point to the pause in the global warming between 1940 when we
really started belching particulates into the air, and 1980 when we
really stopped,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1_s.gif
and say that proves it can't be CO2 production.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> and say that proves it can't be CO2 production.
So, you're saying that since reality is complicated that we should all
just believe that CO2 causes global warming and we should ignore the
fact that there is zero evidence to support this contention. Right?
john fernbach
> and say that proves it can't be CO2 production.
See? You agree with me! It just CAN'T BE CARBON DIOXIDE!
Because if it were, it would cost a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY to fix,
wouldn't it?
And the great thing about sunspots and cosmic dust and tectonic plates
is, NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEM!
If the world is heating up because of sunspot activity or cosmic dust,
and causing killer hurricanes and killer droughts and melting glaciers
& all - THERE'S NOTHING TO BE DONE, and we just have to sit here and
take it.
Isn't that wonderful? It means that no politician could ever impose
regulations on American industry,
and especially on the coal industry and the oil industry, to "fix" the
problem - because hooray! the
problem by definition can't be fixed!
john fernbach
>
> So, you're saying that since reality is complicated that we should all
> just believe that CO2 causes global warming and we should ignore the
> fact that there is zero evidence to support this contention. Right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm saying to hell with the evidence, Claudius. When we've got the
AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM to rely on, and some really fabulous
technologies that run on fossil fuels to rely on, who
gives a damn about the evidene?
Do you?
I say to hell with the IPCC and the Scientific American and Nature
magazine and the National Academy of Sciences and ALL those damned
alarmists who think CO2 emissions are contributing to some fool
greenhouse effect. Forget about all of those people.
THE POINT IS -- WE STILL HAVE TO FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO BLAME!
And some of us are doing a great job at this, too.
In fact, there is really fine work being done on this score by people
RIGHT IN THIS GROUP!
You yourself, Claudius, are really making great progress in this field.
Bawana
>
> <fernbach2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Because carbon dioxide implicates the coal, oil, and natural gas
> > industries. And the automobile industry.
>
> > And we LOVE the coal, gas, oil, and automobile industries, don't we?.
>
> > So blame sunspots -- blame the Klingons - blame demons from another
> > dimension -- blame Satan -- or Osama Bin Laden -- or blame "the Jews"
> > -- blame the Chinese or white people or black people or Hispanic
> > immigration --
>
> > but NEVER, EVER BLAME CARBON DIOXIDE.
>
> > There's just too much capital investment at stake for carbon to be the
> > problem.
>
Because nobody on the left told you what to believe, ztard,ya fucking
bigoted idiot.
raylopez99
> I find it hard to believe how anybody believes whatever the current
> story is of the folks who ten years ago were saying the earth was not
> warming at all; then that it was warming, but satellite measurements
> did not show the atmosphere warming; then that satellite measurements
> show the atmosphere warming, but it's definitely due to solar output;
> now that it's warming, but it's definitely due to cosmic rays. If I
> were the jury in a criminal case, i wouldn't believe the guy whose
> story changed radically during the trial versus the guy whose story
> was pretty much the same but became more detailed and precise as he
> testified more.
You don't understand the scientific method (SM) then Z. In the SM you
are supposed to challenge the person challenging the status quo.
Guess you never went through a PhD dissertation.
And BTW 10 years ago it is generally acknowledged by most AGWers that
the science was NOT settled, as they claim it is now.
So if you were a 'die hard' AGWer like John F* is, 10 years ago, you'd
have been a zealot and a AGW partisan, not a disinterested scientist.
Which raises the question: 10 years ago, did you, Z, "know" AGW = GW
was true? Even before all the evidence was in? Yeah, I wouldn't be
surprised if you did. You're the kind that believes everything you've
ever learned, you learned while in the first grade, huh?
RL
mitch
"Cleopatra_Enterprise_Institute-Queen_of-DeNile" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1174933475.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> industries. And the automobile industry.
>
> And we LOVE the coal, gas, oil, and automobile industries, don't we?.
Without coal, gas and oil we'd freeze to death in winter, not to mention
the other merits of these fuels.
Without an automobile how do e.g. we get shopping carts full of groceries
back to our homes?
Of course, we don't have to use a gasoline powered auto..
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1 (USA only)
http://www.fevehicle.com/services.html (Chinese)
http://www.milesautomotive.com/showroom.php (Chinese)
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Mar 26, 3:42 pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, you're saying that since reality is complicated that we should all
> > just believe that CO2 causes global warming and we should ignore the
> > fact that there is zero evidence to support this contention. Right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm saying to hell with the evidence, Claudius.
There is *no* evidence you mental retard.
Bawana
You fucking tards can't fix a toilet float.
Let us know when you have ANY success altering the global climate.
Until then, only left wing retards are buying your carbon scam.
Toxic Meme Germs
Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al Gore,
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al Gore, Al
Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al Gore, Al Gore,
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al Gore, Al Gore, Al
Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore,
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al
Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore,
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore, Al
Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore
z
> So, you're saying that since reality is complicated that we should all
> just believe that CO2 causes global warming and we should ignore the
> fact that there is zero evidence to support this contention. Right?
Why, no. I'm saying that people who post stuff like "there is zero
evidence to support this contention", i.e. that CO2 causes global
warming, are not only remarkably ignorant, but shamefully happy to
spread their ignorance around.
Joe Fischer
Some people do believe there is global warming, period,
and some scientists say it isn't certain, and I see very little to
support any certainty, but January was warm, and March has
had a week of warm temperatures and no storms here, so
I am still curious.
I also content that average temperatures going
up and down, and day of the year highs and lows don't
mean much because record keeping is less than 200 years
old in almost all locations, in many locations, less.
If all time record highs begin to appear all around
the world, that could be a clear signal that something is
wrong, and that CO2 may be having an adverse effect.
But there are other things that could _BE_ the
problem, or be part of the problem.
To be certain that a fix will be able to fix the
problem with certainty, the choice of action should
be one that is certain to reduce warming, but be
reversible.
Once nuclear plants, especially if Fusion
plants are built, it would be difficult to return to
burning fossil fuels, and there is a big problem
not yet fully realized with not burning carbon
while vegetation continues to release oxygen,
if the percentage of oxygen goes up over 24,
fires of all kinds can become very destructive.
So the answer to warming, should not
only be reversible, but also be a technology that
has substantial benefit other than fixing warming
if that is possible.
And it is possible, even though many if
not most countries have birth control measures
(voluntary in most places, possibly mandatory
in some, maybe China), it will take another
20 or 30 years before the very large number
of women of child bearing age are old enough
to stop having children and there will result
zero population growth as the birth rate drops
to or below the death rate.
So the ideal fix for global warming should
be one that can also provide more land for
agriculture and living space, and the best way
to do that is by reclaiming desert land and other
land unsuitable for living space or agriculture.
So artificial shade awnings with reflecting
or white on one side and black on the other, can
reduce the absorbed solar energy by reflecting
it back into space, and the black side can emit
radiation to the black sky on clear nights and
condense water from the air.
Nothing could be less expensive, nothing
could be more available world wide, nothing could
be easier to construct with unskilled labor, nothing
could be better and more certain to reduce global
warming, and nothing else has the capability to
recover desert land and make it suitable both for
living space and agriculture.
There are places in the desert where soil
is covered by sand, and if plastic is layed down
and covered by soil, it will prevent any moisture
from draining down through the sand.
This is all about people fixing things in
a physical way, which the greatest number of
people in the world can participate in, while
the international proposals for donating money
for high technology can only be done by a
very small part of the population of the world.
Joe Fischer
kdt...@yahoo.com
There is no facts to support your beliefs. CO2 in no way affects the
temperatures of the earth at proportions of 4/10,000. To believe this
hoax is pure ignorance.
Ignorance means to ignore. Here is some actual evidence of cooling,
for you to ignore.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf
This is a conclusion of the authors:
"Although these models do simulate the long-term rates of ocean
warming, this lack of interannual variability represents a shortcoming
that may complicate detection and attribution of human-induced climate
influences."
In order to evade these facts, AGW and the IPCC can fudge their
temperature charts like they are known to do.
This degree of cooling of the ocean was missed by the theoretical
models. These theoretical models that try to envision heat from the
atmosphere being transfered to the ocean, are entirely invalid and
represent reality none at all.
You guys have no direct science, and no proper theoretical
thermodynamics. I wonder if the IPCC will present this factual
determination of cooling of the oceans in their reports.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
If you're feeling stuffy, hot and frustrated,
It's because you've got your head up your ass.
IT'S NOT GLOBAL WARMING
In any event at all you have no empirical data whatsoever for the
communal hysteria, paranoia and CO2Phobia with which you suffer, and
wish for every one else to suffer with you.
Good luck in court with your burden of prood.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
hahahcrackpotshahahcrackpotshahahahahhaha
Deatherage
Exxon Liars & Crooks
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> hahahcrackpotshahahcrackpotshahahahahhaha
>
> Deatherage
Unequivocal, Joe Fischer, "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
john fernbach
Joe - I don't really trust you, or most of the people in here I
consider GW denialists,
but I partly or even mostly agree with you on the importance of making
"fixes"
reversible.
I do think that the "fixes" have to be big enough and pervasive enough
to work, to
actually fix the problems they're designed for. And I don't know if
your shades
painted white on one side and black on the other are enough to work.
The idea of retaining as much flexibility in our responses as
possible, though, is an
excellent one.
I also think that based on everything I've read from AGW scientists
that I respect, who DO think that
we need to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the onset of the next Ice
Age -- when it comes -- will be at LEAST as big a threat to human
civilization as "global warming" is today.
Over the long run, then -- over the next several thousands of years --
human civilization needs to keep the ability to warm up the climate
when we need it warmed. Or we need to develop that capability if we
don't have it now.
And I think it's obvious, for serious people who are concerned about
global climate one way or another, that we do need to keep dedicating
a lot of scientific talent & financial resources to studying and
thinking about the earth's climate system and how it can be
affected.
I don't agree with Ray Lopez that "more research" is a valid subsitute
for action, NOW, on the threat of global climate change from fossil
fuel combustion and anthropogenic methane emissions. I think we need
action now of CO2 and methane emissions, also on anthropenic black
carbon emissions, to head off potential climate catastrophes.
But in the long run, we do need "more research," and honest,
searching, non-ideological research, so that we understand our place
on the planet and how we can keep it comfortable. First of course for
us humans (because it's inevitable that most humans will be human
chauvinists), but secondly also for the myriads of non-human creatures
who share the planet with us, whether this is because of God's bounty
or Nature's.
Even the little bit we know tells us that both natural forces and
human folly can lead to the human and natural environment being really
screwed up, in terms of supporting human and non-human life. And the
more we understand the interlocking forces and factors that govern the
climate -- ALL of them -- the better we can manage ourselves and the
planet to avoid really unpleasant surprises.
Exxon Liars & Crooks
Bawana
You retards have no fixes.
> I do think that the "fixes" have to be big enough and pervasive enough
> to work,...
You retards have no fixes.
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
john fernbach
>
> - Show quoted text -
We certainly don't have any sure-fired "fix" for pigheaded stubborness
bordering on idiocy. And your post reminds me that we sure could use
one, Bawana. Thank you for sharing!
But to the extent that we don't have any fixes -- whether we're
"retards" or not -- we need to develop them.
And that's a big part of what civilization is about -- dreaming up
solutions to longstanding problems,
ideally with the goal of making human life richer & safer & more
satisfying.
Of course this statement is probably going to draw various flamers,
too. The most obvious objection is that it's often really difficult
to make it richer, safer & more satisfying all at once -- hell, it's
often difficult enough to accomplish one of these.
But IMHO, the point of being human beings with a bipedal habit,
opposable thumbs, big brains, and the capacity to invent languages and
make cultural innovations is that it enables us to pursue these goals.
john fernbach
<Crackpot.Zombie.Hor...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
> Unequivocal, Bawana, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
>
Crackpot zombie -- Which side are you on?
You're flooding the whole alt.global warming group with this same
"unequivocal" message.
Kinda reminds me of the sheep in "Animal Farm," constantly disrupting
Snowball with the chant,
"Four legs good! Two legs bad!"
Are you really trying to advance understanding of AGW, CZ, or are you
baahing?
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
raylopez99
These extreme Greens are actually a credit for the AGW Deniers.
Sometimes I wonder if they are not Deniers ('wolves in sheeps
clothing').
RL
z
> There is *no* evidence you mental retard.
What is reality?
Eat it raw!
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
The fact that you choose to believe that such evidence exists does not
mean that I'm obligated to believe also. Why don't you just present
the evidence? Obviously you will not because, as is common knowledge,
no such evidence actually exists.
AGW has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with what
people choose to believe.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
In science trust is not necessary.
You've fallen into their trap. What *they* really want is to create
enough of a stir so that government gives them more money to "study"
the "problem."
>
> I don't agree with Ray Lopez that "more research" is a valid subsitute
> for action, NOW, on the threat of global climate change from fossil
> fuel combustion and anthropogenic methane emissions. I think we need
> action now of CO2 and methane emissions, also on anthropenic black
> carbon emissions, to head off potential climate catastrophes.
>
> But in the long run, we do need "more research," and honest,
> searching, non-ideological research, so that we understand our place
> on the planet and how we can keep it comfortable. First of course for
> us humans (because it's inevitable that most humans will be human
> chauvinists), but secondly also for the myriads of non-human creatures
> who share the planet with us, whether this is because of God's bounty
> or Nature's.
>
> Even the little bit we know tells us that both natural forces and
> human folly can lead to the human and natural environment being really
> screwed up, in terms of supporting human and non-human life. And the
> more we understand the interlocking forces and factors that govern the
> climate -- ALL of them -- the better we can manage ourselves and the
> planet to avoid really unpleasant surprises.-
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
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.
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
john fernbach
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray - I agree, but as usual I don't much trust you; you've told me
that a great deal of what you post in here is designed to inspire
flame wars. So when you voice my suspicions for me, I'm tempted to
disagree with myself .. ah, what a tangled web we weave.
I do think that in the long run, as Gramsci put it, "only the truth is
revolutionary." And only the side that's peddling the truth, or at
least what looks like the truth, is going to win. Which means it
makes sense for all of us to at least pretend to be excruciatingly
reasonable.
john fernbach
>
> What is reality?
> Eat it raw!
Quote from Firesign Theater, right?
Reminds me of Ring Lardner:
"'Shut up,' he explained."
john fernbach
Claws" <Crackpot.Lemming-c...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
Lemmings - I said it on another string but I'll repeat it here: GREAT
POST.
Thank you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> If you like this article, go towww.tnr.com, which breaks down today's