Warning: You are abiout to be hustled by your president
dave
your new-found vulnerability to push through a fascist program you
wouldn't otherwise tolerate.
Mr. Bush is about to propose offshore oil drilling, even though there is
plenty of oil. And you are such a bunch of pussies you'll probably eat
it up. Free country my ass.
was...@jps.net
is plenty...
U.S. imports 70% that we use.
How to Find Gold: Dig For It!
More Oil: Drill For It!
MNMikeW
"dave" <not...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:48591d61$0$26211$bd46...@news.dslextreme.com...
> This is how they operate. They create a "crisis" mentality, then use your
> new-found vulnerability to push through a fascist program you wouldn't
> otherwise tolerate.
>
>
RHF
- Free country my ass.
DaviD -proclaims- "Free Country My Ass"
-ps- Dave that would make a Great Tattoo;
and implies the perfect place to put it too.
.
Dave
There is no shortage of crude oil.
Mr. Bush wants to buy up the leases and sit on them, to keep the price
high (the same reason he invaded Iraq, BTW).
Dave
No. That's a socialist program.
RHF
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:05:33 -0700, wasatch wrote:
> > <Mr. Bush is about to propose offshore oil drilling even though there is
> > plenty...
>
> > U.S. imports 70% that we use.
>
- -
- - More Oil : Drill For It!
- There is no shortage of crude oil.
Dave that is Factually True
-but- That Vast Supply of Oil is still in the Ground.
-specifically- In the USA for the USA.
-ps- Plus a Whole Lot More Coal Too.
First - There is a Shortage of Getting the Oil
out of the Ground to meet the Demand.
-specifically- In the USA for the USA.
-solution- Drill for more Oil in the USA.
Second - There is a Shortage of Oil Refining
Capablility to meet the Demand.
-specifically- In the USA for the USA.
-solution- Build more Oil Refineries in the USA.
ALTERNATIVE : WALK ! -or- Go Nowhere.
facts are facts ~ RHF
.
RHF
asswi...@138mail.com
dave
When you get scared you get screwed by the government. Every time.
Look at the (not even) Patriot Act.
RHF
- Demand for gasoline is dropping.
Dave,
1 - Five to Six New* Eco-Friendly Oil Refineries would put
Capacity at around 75% and provide a Strategic Production
Reserve in case of natural disaster, accident or terrorism.
+ New Jobs for Americans building the Oil Refineries
+ + New Jobs for Americans working in the Oil Refineries
2 - Five to Six New Eco-Friendly Oil Refineries would
allow the retirement of that many older Refineries that
are bad for the Environment.
+ New Jobs for Americans building the Oil Refineries
Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy.
plan and build for the future -or- have 'no' future ~ RHF
.
>
> When you get scared you get screwed by the government. Every time.
> Look at the (not even) Patriot Act.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
cheley_b...@live.com
Hey Dude!
He already did this shit..
We Invaded Iraq..
R E M E M B E R ? ?
cheley_b...@live.com
> On Jun 19, 4:46 am, dave <noth...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > RHF wrote:
> > > On Jun 18, 2:42 pm, Dave <j...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:05:33 -0700, wasatch wrote:
> > >>> <Mr. Bush is about to propose offshore oil drilling even though there is
> > >>> plenty...
> > >>> U.S. imports 70% that we use.
> > > - - How to Find Gold : Dig For It!
> > > - -
> > > - - More Oil : Drill For It!
>
> > > - There is no shortage of crude oil.
>
> > > Dave that is Factually True
> > > -but- That Vast Supply of Oil is still in the Ground.
> > > -specifically- In the USA for the USA.
Oh really ???
Is it extractable?
How many barrels are extractable?
> > > -ps- Plus a Whole Lot More Coal Too.
>
> > > First - There is a Shortage of Getting the Oil
> > > out of the Ground to meet the Demand.
> > > -specifically- In the USA for the USA.
- because China and India are now getting cars..
> > > -solution- Drill for more Oil in the USA.
>
- well dude, that oil would be sold to the highest Bidder
- namely China and India..
> >
> > > ALTERNATIVE : WALK ! -or- Go Nowhere.
>
> > > facts are facts ~ RHF
- But God Bless George Bush and his Truthiness..
Google " Smart Car"
Larry's prostate
ALL politicians suck. Welcome to reality.
RHF
There are No Smart Cars -only- Smart Walkers
>
>
>
> > > > .
>
> > > When you get scared you get screwed by the government. Every time.
> > > Look at the (not even) Patriot Act.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
none
Just as many as they need.
none
RHF
- Dave,
-
- 1 - Five to Six New* Eco-Friendly Oil Refineries would put
- Capacity at around 75% and provide a Strategic Production
- Reserve in case of natural disaster, accident or terrorism.
- + New Jobs for Americans building the Oil Refineries
- + + New Jobs for Americans working in the Oil Refineries
-
- 2 - Five to Six New Eco-Friendly Oil Refineries would
- allow the retirement of that many older Refineries that
- are bad for the Environment.
- + New Jobs for Americans building the Oil Refineries
-
- Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy.
-
- plan and build for the future -or- have 'no' future ~RHF
- .
New US Oil Drilling Is Making Millionaires In North Dakota
-by- JAMES MacPHERSON [AP]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_re_us/overnight_millionaires_1
North Dakota has nearly 4,000 Active Oil Wells Pumping.
Bakken Oil Shale Formation, a rich deposit that the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
U.S. Geological Survey calls the Largest Continuous
Oil Accumulation it has ever assessed.
.
Dave
> New US Oil Drilling Is Making Millionaires In North Dakota -by- JAMES
> MacPHERSON [AP]
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_re_us/overnight_millionaires_1
> North Dakota has nearly 4,000 Active Oil Wells Pumping. Bakken Oil Shale
> Formation, a rich deposit that the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation U.S. Geological Survey
> calls the Largest Continuous Oil Accumulation it has ever assessed.
> .
If petroleum is so essential to US national security then oil companies
should be run like public utilities, where the profits are returned to
the infrastructure or to the customers. Nationalize the fuckers.
RHF
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:48:43 -0700, RHF wrote:
> > New US Oil Drilling Is Making Millionaires In North Dakota -by- JAMES
> > MacPHERSON [AP]
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_re_us/overnight_millionaires_1
> > North Dakota has nearly 4,000 Active Oil Wells Pumping. Bakken Oil Shale
> > Formation, a rich deposit that the
> > calls the Largest Continuous Oil Accumulation it has ever assessed.
> > .
- If petroleum is so essential to US national security
- then oil companies should be run like public utilities,
- where the profits are returned to the infrastructure or
- to the customers. Nationalize the fuckers.
Take the Social Security Trust Fund {sic} and
Buy Them All Up : Then The American People
Not the US Government would Own Big Oil.
.
Dave
>
> Take the Social Security Trust Fund {sic} and Buy Them All Up : Then The
> American People Not the US Government would Own Big Oil.
> .
The American People and the US Government are one and the same,
Einstein. Read the Constitution (or the Gettysburg Address) some time.
m II
> If petroleum is so essential to US national security then oil companies
> should be run like public utilities, where the profits are returned to
> the infrastructure or to the customers. Nationalize the fuckers.
Profits are more important than National Security. In fact, wars are
allowed and even encouraged to start in order to *Enhance* profits.
mike
--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.
RHF
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:44:40 -0700, RHF wrote:
>
- - and Buy Them All Up :
- - Then The American People Not the
- - US Government would Own Big Oil.
- The American People and the US Government
- are one and the same, Einstein.
- Read the Constitution (or the Gettysburg Address) some time.
Dave - D'Oh !
One is a Vest Financial Right :
The 'other' a Political Concept {Social Construct}.
-ps- there is a difference ~ RHF
.
RHF
> Dave wrote:
> > If petroleum is so essential to US national security then oil companies
> > should be run like public utilities, where the profits are returned to
> > the infrastructure or to the customers. Nationalize the fuckers.
>
Mike - Is this what passes for 'original' Canadian Thinking ?
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
Now That -is- 'original' American Thinking ~ RHF
- In fact, wars are allowed and even encouraged
- to start in order to *Enhance* profits.
- mike
Mike -so- Is this what you are proposing as the
Canadian Economic Model for the 21st Century ?
it boggles the mind ~ RHF
.
Dave
> Mike - Is this what passes for 'original' Canadian Thinking ?
>
> "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
> Now That -is- 'original' American Thinking ~ RHF
>
John Locke was an Englishman, you dumb fuck.
RHF
> RHF wrote:
> > Mike - Is this what passes for 'original' Canadian Thinking ?
>
> > "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
> > Now That -is- 'original' American Thinking ~ RHF
>
Dave - Tsimple things to consider :
Too Dumb - The phrase is based on the writings of
John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of
"life, liberty, and estate (or property)".
To Understand the F*ck Difference
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Written by Thomas Jefferson, the words in the
Declaration were a Departure from the Orthodoxy
of Locke. { Inalienable Individual Human Rights
-over- Property Rights Granted by the Crown }
-ps- Until the United States Declaration of Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Thomas Jefferson was and Englishman too.
.
Dave
Inherent rights is from Muslim common law, BTW.
RHF
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:46:36 -0700, RHF wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 6:15 am, Dave <d...@dave.dave> wrote:
> >> RHF wrote:
> >> > Mike - Is this what passes for 'original' Canadian Thinking ?
>
> >> > "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>
> Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Now That -is- 'original' American Thinking ~ RHF
>
> > - John Locke was an Englishman, you dumb fuck.
- - Dave - Two simple things to consider :
- -
- - Too Dumb - The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke,
- - who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (or
- - property)".
- -
- - To Understand the F*ck Difference
- - "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
- - Written by Thomas Jefferson, the words in the Declaration
- - were a Departure from the Orthodoxy of Locke.
- - { Inalienable Individual Human Rights -over-
- - Property Rights Granted by the Crown }
- -
- - -ps- Until the United States Declaration of Independence
- - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
- - Thomas Jefferson was and Englishman too.
- Inherent rights is from Muslim common law, BTW.
Dave - D'Oh ! - Muslim "Inherent Rights" for the Faithfull
Follows of Islam {All 'others' Being Right-Less Infidels}
DO NO EQUAL "Inalienable Human Rights for All"
Regardless of Status, Wealth or Religion.
dang that was easy ~ RHF
.
cuh...@webtv.net
www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd372.htm
I HOPE SO!
cuhulin
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:45:57 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> >news:48591d61$0$26211$bd46...@news.dslextreme.com...
> >> This is how they operate. They create a "crisis" mentality, then use
> >> your new-found vulnerability to push through a fascist program you
> >> wouldn't otherwise tolerate.
>
>
> No. That's a socialist program.
Wall Street Journal (a right wing publication) blows the whistle on
the Bush Administrations fraudulent suppression of global warming
dangers established by science. And energy discussions on bloviating
right wing radio STILL not acknowledging that oil is not a feasible
source of energy in the long term.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659608477668919.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> U.S. Geological Survey calls the Largest Continuous
> Oil Accumulation it has ever assessed.
> .
Can't go on using oil for more than another 10 to 20 years due to the
global warming emergency proven by science, dumbass.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
No, the fact is you don't care about the future.
Carbon based fuel is NOT an option for long term energy use. Perhaps
you haven't heard about global warming? You should be informed.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> On Jun 18, 2:42 pm, Dave <j...@somewhere.com> wrote:> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:05:33 -0700, wasatch wrote:
> > > <Mr. Bush is about to propose offshore oil drilling even though there is
> > > plenty...
>
> > > U.S. imports 70% that we use.
>
> - - How to Find Gold : Dig For It!
> - -
> - - More Oil : Drill For It!
>
> - There is no shortage of crude oil.
>
> Dave that is Factually True
> -but- That Vast Supply of Oil is still in the Ground.
> -specifically- In the USA for the USA.
> -ps- Plus a Whole Lot More Coal Too.
>
> First - There is a Shortage of Getting the Oil
> out of the Ground to meet the Demand.
> -specifically- In the USA for the USA.
> -solution- Drill for more Oil in the USA.
>
> Second - There is a Shortage of Oil Refining
> Capablility to meet the Demand.
> -specifically- In the USA for the USA.
> -solution- Build more Oil Refineries in the USA.
>
> ALTERNATIVE : WALK ! -or- Go Nowhere.
>
> facts are facts ~ RHF
> .
Nonsense.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/07/18/20080718climate-risks0718.html
Solar thermal is already practical, as is nuclear and wind power. The
only problem is to overcome ignorant "drill happy" folks who want to
dump misery on future generations to selfishly avoid dealing with the
global warming emergency before it does massive damage to the economy
and the population of humans on earth.
D Peter Maus
>
> Can't go on using oil for more than another 10 to 20 years due to the
> global warming emergency proven by science, dumbass.
Nothing has been proven. There is considerable debate within the
scientific community about the validity of the claims made by the global
warming movement. To underscore the point, NOAA released figures this
past quarter that indicate global temperatures have dropped by .6 of a
degree in the last 12 months.
As for greenhouse gasses...well, let's look at that. Carbon dioxide
is only .04% of atmospheric content. Every living creature on the planet
emits CO2. Even plants, in the absence of sunlight. In the presence of
sunlight, they consume CO2 at a voracious rate.
Water, on the other hand, is the primary greehouse gas, with a known
impact on atmospheric temperature through cloud formation. And yet....no
one has even hinted at it's regulation.
A previous poster is correct....global warming is a socialist
movement. It's goals are precisely the same as the alarmists who set
their crosshairs on the oil industry when Rockefeller was building the
Standard Oil monopoly.
D Peter Maus
Global temperatures were far higher in the 30's and 40's than they
are now. Highest global temperature on record was in 1934, according to
NOAA.
None of these catastrophes has taken place. Although the dust bowl of
the 30's and 40's does bear witness to the peak in temperatures in the
Plains.
We haven't seen dust bowl conditions since.
Global temperatures were so high in the 11th, 12th, and 13th
centuries that wine grapes, which are highly temperature sensitive,
were grown as far north as Scotland. In fact, the highly prized French
vineyards are comprised almost entirely of rootstock transplanted from
England and Scotland during this time.
When Leif Ericson landed in what is now Newfoundland in the early
11th century, he named it Vinland...in English that would be
Wineland...because of the expanse of wild grapes growing there. He found
the climate warm, with little frost through the winter, and grapes were
so plentiful and so widespread that one of his crewmates, a German named
Tyrker, wandered into the countryside and was found months later drunk
on his ass with wine he'd made from the local grapes.
All this, despite the fact that the last Hummer dealership has been
closed years before.
If you look at where wine is grown today, it's all moved south.
Gradually since the 14th century, virtually all wine grapes have been
transplanted to southernmore climes because the northern latitudes have
been growing too cold for grapes to grow there. Indicating that over the
centuries, the planet has cooled, not warmed.
It is you who needs to be informed.
Oil is not the problem. The problem is political.
"Nuclear" has been a dirty word since the movie 'The China Syndrome,'
a film often pointed to as a reference in debates where nuclear plants
were to be constructed. As a population, most of what is 'understood'
about nuclear energy production comes from that film.
Three Mile Island was the horror it was BECAUSE of the The China
Syndrome, when in fact, though a meltdown had occurred--some 8 feet of
reactor core was lost--the systems did precisely what they were supposed
to do, and shut the reactor down.
Odd, no one ever talks about THAT.
The problem is not the ignorant 'drill happy' folks.
The problem is the ignorant uneducated folks attempting to create a
panic based on short sight, and snapshot focus on a very narrow picture
of global events. And an overall suppression of understanding of energy
production by so-called professionals in education.
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
Michael Savage had a fellow on in the past week who outlined what the socialists
have done over the years to instill fear in the people. If I recall, there may
me a link on his site to the info, though I've not looked at it.
The guest made a point about what the left will do when the 'global warming'
craze subsides and that will be to manufacture another crisis and on and on it
will go.
D Peter Maus
It's what they've always done.
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
Pretty darn amazing. I can't wait to find out what the next 'crisis' will be.
m II
>> It's what they've always done.
>
> Pretty darn amazing. I can't wait to find out what the next 'crisis' will be.
Well, Weapons of Mass Destruction has been already used. They even lied
to the UN about it. I'm sure they'll think of something. People will
believe ANYTHING.
mike
--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.
dxAce
m II wrote:
> dxAce wrote:
>
> >> It's what they've always done.
> >
> > Pretty darn amazing. I can't wait to find out what the next 'crisis' will be.
>
> Well, Weapons of Mass Destruction has been already used. They even lied
> to the UN about it. I'm sure they'll think of something. People will
> believe ANYTHING.
Actually, leftists, and dumbass Canucks will believe ANYTHING, lets be honest about
this.
Now stop wasting time, get that shine box stocked up and get busy, boy!
D Peter Maus
> dxAce wrote:
>
>>> It's what they've always done.
>> Pretty darn amazing. I can't wait to find out what the next 'crisis' will be.
>
> Well, Weapons of Mass Destruction has been already used. They even lied
> to the UN about it. I'm sure they'll think of something. People will
> believe ANYTHING.
>
Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
Yeah, guess they'll 'fictionally' manufacture it into nuclear fuel.
But then again, much of CanaDuh appears to be fictional, if not a joke.
D Peter Maus
A FRIEND OF MINE SENT ME THIS E-MAIL.
Subject: Wild Pigs
There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some
exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab
the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his
back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young
man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in
his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native
country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and
install a communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange
question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The
professor
thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said
this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in
the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to
come everyday to eat the free corn. When t hey are used to coming every
day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to
coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn
again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that
and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of
the fence up with a gate in the last side.. The pigs, who are used to
the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, then you slam the
gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost
their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are
caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn.
They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the
woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism
and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as
supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies,
dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine,
drugs, et c, etc, etc. while we continue to lose our freedoms - just a
little at a time.
One should always remember: a politician can never provide a service for
y ou cheaper than you can do it yourself.
In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the
candidates are promising you - just maybe you will be able to tell who
is about to slam the gate.
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
That is an awesome piece, and I'm going to forward it on.
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
RHF
- No, the fact is you don't care about the future.
I 'care' about the "Future" Every Day ~ RHF
- Carbon based fuel is NOT an option for long term energy use.
I Am Carbon Based - What Are You "Silly-Com" ?
{Silly Communist}
- Perhaps you haven't heard about global warming?
D'Oh ! The Global Warning Mantra :
Say It Ten Times in a Row
-and- You Are Full of Hot Air.
- You should be informed.
D'Oh ! . . . and you are ? - Not ! ~ RHF
.
RHF
- Nonsense.
(OT) : Electric Co-Generation through Heat-Recovery -is- Not
Nonsense.
> http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/07/18/200...
>
> Solar thermal is already practical, as is nuclear and wind power. The
> only problem is to overcome ignorant "drill happy" folks who want to
> dump misery on future generations to selfishly avoid dealing with the
> global warming emergency before it does massive damage to the economy
> and the population of humans on earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave
>> >
>> >
>> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
>> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
>
> Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
dxAce
Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> >> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
> >
> > Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
>
> A pile of ore is not a weapon.
However, a pile of crap (such as yourself) is an idiot!
D Peter Maus
Dave
> Denial is a marvelous thing.
As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is
wisdom.
D Peter Maus
So far, all I see from you is denial.
RHF
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
>
> >> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> >> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
>
> > Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
- A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
Dave Two Words : "Dirty Bomb" ~ RHF
US Removes Uranium from Iraq -and-
Sets Back the Islam-O-Facist "Dirty Bomb" Project
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/b0022144f484dbcf
Secret U.S. Mission Hauls Uranium from Iraq
Last major Stockpile from Saddam's Nuclear Bomb
efforts arrives in Canada
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Removal of 550 Metric Tons of "YellowCake" the
seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment
and a prime source for a Yellow Cake "Dirty" Bomb.
Note - A Metric Ton = 1,000 Kilograms ~ 2205 Pounds {USA}
Al-Qaeda 'was making' Dirty Bomb - BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2711645.stm
Al Qaeda pursued a "Dirty Bomb"
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/oct/16/20031016-110337-4698r/
Al Qaeda Looking To Explode Dirty Bomb
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2007/11/26/al-qaeda-looking-to-explode-d...
Guantanamo Inmate Charged with Al-Qaeda "Dirty Bomb" Plot
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article40...
Fact Sheet on Dirty Bombs - US NRC
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs...
"Dirty Bomb" ~ Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
"The Dirty Bomb" -by NOVA [PBS]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Dirty Bombs
-by- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/dirtybombs.asp
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9548/
How Dirty Bombs Work
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dirty-bomb.htm
The "Dirty Bomb" Scenario
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,182637,00.html
Dirty Bomb Technology -by- BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/dirtybomb.shtml
The FARC [Columbia] "Dirty Bomb" Plot -by- LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/world/fg-dirtybomb28
No mention of the Hugo Chavez and FARC 'connection'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/04/colombia.venezuela
.
> http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
m II
> Subject: Wild Pigs
Of course none of this movement to totalitarianism has happened in the
last seven and a half years. The Patriot act is merely for your own good.
dxAce
m II wrote:
> D Peter Maus wrote:
>
> > Subject: Wild Pigs
>
> Of course none of this movement to totalitarianism has happened in the
> last seven and a half years. The Patriot act is merely for your own good.
Meanwhile, CanaDuh must have enacted the Dumbass Act!
m II
> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
UN Investigators were well aware of it's presence.
The fictional part of that is completely due to State department
bungling. Check out the sequence of events.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1115/p01s04-uspo.htm
Dave
A lot of what I see from you is baseless criticism and a complete
unwillingness to back up anything you say with any kind of factual matter.
Dave
> Dave Two Words : "Dirty Bomb" ~ RHF
>
>
> Al Qaeda pursued a "Dirty Bomb"
The subject was Iraq, not Al Qaeda. A "dirty bomb" would contaminate a
few acres, at best (worst). You have thrown your country away because
you are afraid of a media created Boogeyman.
m II
> However, a pile of crap (such as yourself) is an idiot!
The Wit and Wisdom of Steve Lare, aka dxAce,
SUPCOMUCOMM (Supreme Commander, United Counties of Michigan Militia)
Michigan
USA
(Updated regularly):
=================================================
I ain't white, but unlike you, I dislike no one.
However, a pile of crap (such as yourself) is an idiot!
Take a walk, buttfuck.
Come lick me homo boy.
Come and arrest me, cockbite.
Yep, the Great Spirit watches over us all!
You are worthless.
Yeah, go ahead, you drooling idiot.
Nope, but you're a faggot now, right?
Yer mama tossed ya because you're a homo boy, ain't that
true?
Did I make any distinction with regard to country, you pedantic little
cocksucker?
Blow me, faggot boy!
Fuck YOU, and fuck CanaDuh.
Now asswipe, go take your meds.
Take your meds, retard.
Humanity would be better served if 'Eduardo' were to take his shtick
to the fields and began picking lettuce.
And, 'Eddy', may I be so bold as to state that the best part of you
obviously dripped down your mothers leg.
You are a nice retarded boy.
I don't know, though it might be fun to torture him!
Your move, bitch...
Dumbass Canucks, such as yourself, are not deserving of oxygen.
Even more ironic is that you never dispute the fact that you are a
little cocksucker!
Hey, dumbass, I don't watch the Fox News channel. So, you can shove
that dumbass idea right up your gaping Liberal ass!
But hey, I made $14,000 trading oil today.. blow me
Funny how the US Govt. sent me over $50,000 last year
LMFAO as I sit and look at my royalty cheques...
I prefer genuine ROLEX!
Shove it up your ass, you faux little SOB.
You're full of shit, SOB.
Jerking off not enough for you, boy?
Do you spit or swallow?
Very tasty!
Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals.
I interact on at least a weekly basis with them, and surprisingly
enough, they themselves utter the words 'damn faggots' with those who
tend to step out of line.
Is that the gay place to be?
Were you the blower or the blowee?
Believe it, it's like a dream to be with you again...
If you'd like to call me, I'm here to help you until 0330 GMT at:
616 335-9762
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Ya right, suck my dick...
I know it may be hard, but as you withdraw, it will shrink away..
Stop whining, you pathetic little prick.
I'm gonna go buy a new Stratocaster tomorrow!
You need to buy a chink watch!
I thank the Great Spirit every day for the fact that I'm not white like
you.
I know enough to realize that you most likely have BO.
But, let me say this: if we were to find that something was sent into
CanaDuh, and it were not checked, and then passed to the USA for bad
purposes, you'd be on your knees asking the USA not to give your sorry
asses the stomping that you would so rightly deserve, you stupid,
fucking, pieces of shit that you are!
I don't watch your youtube crap, cartoon boy!
God 'ol SPAM
Sorry, I'm not a racist like you, Edweenie...
Hey, Chink Boy, I got a real Rolex, still ticking after 33 years.. shove
it up your slant eyed ass.
Get the hell out of my country, boy, and head back to where those who
appreciate little NAZI bastards such as yourself, you little faux
Hispanic piece of shit.
He's a bean blower!
Stuff a burrito in it, 'Eduardo'.
FUCK CANADUH
In your case that must mean Hispanic Retard department.
Proud to be Miami and a blood relative of Abraham Lincoln
I said it before, and I say it again... Vicente Fox
is a stinking piece of Mexican shit.
Keep blowing those beans out your sorry, un-american ass, boy.
Our data indicates that humanity would be better served if you were in the
fields picking lettuce.
Wonder why.... could it be that the Canucky Niggah is timid, afraid...?
You dumb sand niggers (sorry, I categorize ya all this way) need to
understand that you need to get your collective shit together...
Damn, the Canucky Niggah didn't have a damn thing to say...
Extremely heavy emphasis on the BOY.
Actually VA facilities are quite good, but if you Canucky niggahs poke
around one might find a lot of things wrong.
Fuckin' dumbass.
You are certainly an SOB, you stupid, MF'ing, liar and poseur!
WRNO FM 99.5 became Rush Radio today.
Rush mentioned it on the show, and also seemed to say that at least
for a while they'd be carrying his show for 18 hours a day.
Your birth trait is that you're a MORON, dumbass.
Something for your faux Hispanic cock sucking brain to think about, eh?
Blow it out yer ass, Canuck!
All your talk comes from within the contours of your ass.
Yes, I am witty, and I am wise!
my mommy blew it out her ass II wrote
True, ain't it, little faux Hispanic BOY.. (Heavy emphasis on the BOY!)
Stuff a taco in it, Ramon!
And don't forget SAMBLA, South American Man Boy Love Association.
Mouth wide open, ready to take a load.
Difficult for moi?
After eating the taco's wouldn't they be capable of gassing themelves?
It is then my patriotic friend, you must reach in the closet,
place your hands upon the weapon, and blow the cock sucking,
bean blower back into Mary's arms....
They are mere asswipes, suitable for flushing.
How many American lives were affected by the
slant eyed shit throughout the entire war?
Dumbass Canucks, sure ain't Rolex wearin' respectable folk...!
Or better yet, go get yourself some IBO Cock!
Yeah, after all, you're the Queen of your drug addled world.
And that has exactly what to do with the fact that CanaDuh is a
Third World Country?
Canucks need to be castrated.
Shame? Sorry, I'm not a dumbass Canuck. Blow me, boy.
Hey, buttfuck boy... try to pay attention, you little piece of
non-listening excrement.
Why are the retards mostly dumbass Canucks?
Run along little Canucky dweeb.
One of my nicknames, starting around 1975 or so has been 'Raoul'
Well, now you know them, and you know me, Karl Mauritania!
Obviously you're just a retard boy who failed as a corporate manager.
Did I say it was, shit for brains?
Because you're a moron, Druggie!
Ace is doing ok!
They don't call me 'Ace' for nothing!
And you, just another retard on the short bus.
All of my DX is better than your DX no matter what I do.
Well, I cann assure most everyone here that I've done 100% of my DX'ing
without the help from anyone here, and I've had a moderate amount of
success.
You claim to be 'Cherokee'... I think you're just 'Wannabee'...
No need to do anything more productive than cash the checks,
invest the money, do some DX'ing, and rile up the
mentally ill Canucks!
Why is it that you queers always seem to **SIGH** a lot? (1)
LOLOLOLOLOLOL... what a damn dumb cunt you are!
Now get your homo ass working on that documentation, boy!
Give it a shot queer boys, I dare ya!Very tasty!
Cocksuckers such as your self.
Hit the road, 'tard.
Toss 'em all, especially the Canucks!
So, just why is it that you queers always seem to **SIGH** a lot? (2)
Now go suck on some sushi, you little miscreant.
I just asked you to have the cunt send me a letter, boy.
So, just why is it that you queers always seem to **SIGH** a lot? (3)
"I'm so obese I had to get the extra heavy duty plastic blow-up doll"
Let me sum up, you Canucks are assholes!
So, just why is it that you queers always seem to **SIGH** a lot? (4)
Hit the road, drug addled fool.
Shame on CanaDuh for killing thousands of people every day.
Be sure to tell the bitch to send me that letter, faggot!
get your bitch *daughter* to send me a letter
Inquiring minds want to know just why is it that you queers always
seem to **SIGH** a lot? (5)
Have the bitch send me the letter!
Well, go tell your other cocksucking countrymen.
Hey, have the bitch send me a letter
I can show her mine, and she can show me yours?
Ain't gonna happen, ya got no air farce, ya got no ne vuy, va goy
nuthitin?
If you think for a moment that they'll listen to a drunken dumbass
Canuck you'd be sadly mistaken!
Have the bitch send me a f00kin letter!
You folk really think ya got balls?
Now run along to wherever it is you little debutantes run off to...
I'll be waiting for that letter from your *daughter*, asshole!
Oh yeah, tell me baby...
Hey, little pussy boy, we spell it "cunt" out here, just like I think I
spelled it originally, boy.
Never touched the skanky,,,
If I don't get that letter, boy, then you and your *daughter* must
both be drunk, eh?
Finally shut you up, eh boy?
Have the bitch send me a letter on whatever letterhead YOU
might make up.
Ain't that just speshul! He's got to go find somewun to
fake him a lettter.
Have the bitch send me a letter on her firms letterhead, boy.
Great, then get your bitch *daughter* to send me a letter on her firms
letterhead within the next two weeks!
Have your *daughter* draw up a contract, BOY!
Hey, 'Edurado', have your *daughter* get in touch with me, amigo
Guess that shut the little boy up!
Stuff it up your prancing ass, 'Tardo!
I'm LMFAO, since I've busted the f00kin faggot!
You are after all a drug addled 'tard boy who
obviously knows little about the SWL/DX hobby.
Go blow some IBO Cock, and leave the real radio hobbyists alone, OK?
Let the faggot boy prove it!
LMFAO at the f00kin faggot
Yes, I learn more and more with each passing day!
LMFAO at the pathological liar!
Lying 'tard boy, much like the other debutante, malcontent, faux boys
who inhabit the lace we call RRS.
You, on the other hand are nothing more than a sorry little
homosexual 'tard
Liar, liar, pantalunes on fire! (1)
New history will be made when we crush CanaDuh!
Kan you just imagining that, you little faggot Cannucky boy?
Anybody, even Bozo, is worth more than some dumbass, faggot, Canuck!
Get busy, boy!
But you can't prove it, retard boy!
I know you faggots have dreams
Blow it out your ass, you dumbass Canadian! You and the rest of your
dumbass countrymen, and women too!
You'd not be very happy if I returned, little bitch boy!
Go get some IBOCock, 'tard boy, and bring home a taste for yer mama.
Go give your boyfriend a blow job!
Talk about misery, you're in f00kin CanaDuh, boy!
Poor little cocksucker just had it handed to him
Eh? You sum dumass Canucuy bithyboy...
As long as it screws you Canucks, I'm a happy camper!
That's because you're a fucking liar!
Cry me a f00kin river.
Awwwww... the poor whiny dumbass Canuck is back at it again today.
Huh... you be just another stupid white boy outta Cleveland...
I suggest you get together with your "significant other" and bump butt
with each other,
Because I hate White Boy Canucks who suck cock...
Best you shuffle down the alley! That's what your mama wanted!
Crazy Retarded Australian People?
"Even 2 cents is more than a totally worthless Canuck"
You can preDICK all you want, you fraudulent cock sucking,
pathologically lying old bastard boy!
Hey, dumbfuck Canuck, I was not asked to leave!
I don't use Chink stuff
I went and bought ammo... I still gots it case them tard boys such as
edweena gets stirred up.
And 10,000 rounds isn't a lot.
It was Russian ammo. I don't like the Chinese stuff.
Now where did I put that other case of ammo..
I don't use Chink ammo.
That's not Canuckian, boy!
Kiss my ass, pedant!
I'm LMFAO, Mr. Gay-Lick!
Obfuscate, you little prancer!
LMAO at the 'tard.
Thing is, you 'tards are pretty fixated upon one set of parameters.
That is after all why you are considered to be 'tards!
As always, your head is up your f00kin ass.
You fuckin' Liberal asswipes are always ready to give somebodys else's
goodies away...
And, hopefully, my dumbass cousin in Mill Valley will leave me her
Corvette.
Obviously, you leep your head up your f00kin ass all day long.
I don't 'fear' homos, oh faux one!
Liar, liar, pantalunes on fire! (2)
Apparently you are the 'bendover boy'....
Oh, I certainly have, time after time.
At least I went farther than you!
Good lubricant for you and the boys?
It's what dxAce uses!
that's good enough for me!
One can never slide the BS by dxAce
Not as well as you, fudge pack.
Go for it, dumbass!
Oh come on... it's Fall forward and Spring back. Everyone knows that!
Hit the road, drug addled fool.
Hey, I love kickin' gay-lick ass!
Pretty much what I indicated to you a while back, you f00kin prancer.
The only thing you know about short wave is that that is what your
mother gave you when she sent your f00kin ass packin' outta Cleveland.
Screw the drug addled retards.
Nah, I only attack the messenger when he/she/it is
obviously drug addled.
So, beat the rush and get the hell off of RRS, you f00kin retard.
Well, in you, we have a drug addled retard in our midst.
Get over it, you fake Hispanic piece of excrement.
And when you do confront HD, you'll have Cocksucker Dave and
The Prancer Boys to thank for it.
Damn... I'm of mixed race ancestry myself, what ever should I do?
Next time we come over the pond once again to save your sorry ass's
we'll have to dismantle that stuff.
Heck, I bought 1000 shares of FSEAX the other day.
Don't do business with the Huntington Investment Company,
in particular a fellow named Joseph Klein.
Not at all, we are both Miami Indians. ya got a problem with that, boy?
Then hit the road, you drug addled retard.
Just like you wish that you worked for me, retard!
Proven time and time again, fudge pack.
Get it, retard?
Dey done unnerstannn that us nateev boyyys R real Mericans!
I sure he is.
Insert your Gay-Lick reply here, boy:
And yet another Liberal rant
Nah, he was fake little cock sucker like you!
Your pathological lying is an offense to me, and more than likely an
offense to God as well.
No medications here, cock sucker boy..
Stuff a watermelon up it
But that stuff isn't what dxAce uses!
Come on now, you being a nice Liberal, Carbon Footprint, Al Gore, Cock
Sucking kinda Canuck Bastard..
I won R plantation up nord, dat dem dum ass Canuckys be oween us, ya be
'standin me?
CanaDuh is stupidity!
Stupid little pussy faggot!
Liar, liar, pantalunes on fire! (3)
Mr. Edweenie, the forces of Good are gonna come visit your sorry fake
Hispanic White Boy Ass if you keep it up!
Pay attention, cock sucker...
You've done this before, cock sucker...
LMFAO at yet another dumb friggin Canuck..
I spit a wee bit of Guinness earlier!
Oh damn, I guess we pissed another wanker off, Cuz..
I get my ride be fixed, I be cruisin to be givin ya da shake, yu be
knowin, eh?
Try again, shithead.....
Dem Canucky boyz are dumaz rasissts..
Nah, I'm just more intelligent than you are.
We gone be sen u to sumplac bad boy... u be so bad weben the reel
Canuckys won wan u.
Fookin bustards! Like Edweenie!
Best you wake up soon... fookin retard leetle beetch..
Fookin 'retard.
Indeed, I'm now at WAR with Canuckistan..
May the Great Spirit help the hapless bastards.
At any rate, I'd bet it beats the Canucky Third World state of care...
CanaDuh sucks...
Wanna go to war, shit head?
Think you might win? Think you got a chance?
If you don't... I'd keep my fookin Canucky mouth shut, boy...
Meanwhile, I plan for the Spring campaign, looking forward to the
Blind River Massacre.
I collect stamps!
*********************************************
=============================================
08/02/15 10:58 PM
I really don't want to say this, my many shortwave friends, but I find
that I am giving up far to much of my increasingly valuable time here
on RRS trying to educate the faux, the debutantes, and those who tote..
Therefore, I've simply decided to give up RRS.
Goodbye, I sincerely hope that you all find your niche in
the world of SW.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
=============================================
*********************************************
dxAce
m II wrote:
> dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote:
Well, you're certainly CanaDuh's Finest Dumbass, boy!
D Peter Maus
> D Peter Maus wrote:
>
>> Subject: Wild Pigs
>
> Of course none of this movement to totalitarianism has happened in the
> last seven and a half years. The Patriot act is merely for your own good.
>
>
>
>
> mike
>
>
You keep forgetting how many times Bill Clinton tried to pass the
Patriot Act. And how many times the Republican Congress blocked him.
Or that Projects Echelon and Carnivore were built during his
administration.
m II
> You keep forgetting how many times Bill Clinton tried to pass the
> Patriot Act. And how many times the Republican Congress blocked him.
> Or that Projects Echelon and Carnivore were built during his
> administration.
It would appear government in general is out of control.
They tend to forget THEY are the servants, not the people
who sent them there.
D Peter Maus
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:17 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Denial is a marvelous thing.
>>> As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is
>>> wisdom.
>>>
>>>
>> So far, all I see from you is denial.
>
> A lot of what I see from you is baseless criticism and a complete
> unwillingness to back up anything you say with any kind of factual matter.
The fact that I don't post links that you yourself could find using
the same search engines as I is only an indication that I choose not to
do your work for you.
If you were interested in the whole truth, you'd look them up
yourself. Just as I do.
Or to put that another way...in the words of a certain Internet founder:
"How do you say 'Fuck You' on the internet?"
"Cite your source."
I read as much, if not more, than you do. From a variety of sources.
Left, as well as Right. And what I find most interesting, is that the
left demands citations, sources, and peer reviewed publications for
everything that the Right presents....and then proceeds to dismiss, not
the material, but the source, as uninformed, irrelevant, fascist,...pick
your adjective.
The Left, however, when presenting it's material cites few sources,
and then states that their own sources are unimpeachable, and that to
question them is to question the very existence of Truth itself.
As if the Left and only the Left has the exclusive privilege of
access to the Truth.
Global Warming is a hoax disputed by more peer reviewed scientists
every day.
"The Science is settled. The debate is over."
--Al Gore.
No less than Nancy Pelosi suggested a bill cutting off all funding
for scientists not signing on to the global warming agenda. That
educators not signing on to the global warming agenda have their tenure
revoked, and for lower level educators, their very certification to
teach revoked. Meteorologists not signing on to the global warming
agenda were to be removed from their positions, and/or removed from the
air at once.
This is not just a disagreement in philosophy, this is a United
States Congressperson specifically calling for the censoring of
opposition, by the Government.
Have you HEARD of the First Amendment?
"People can't just walk around saying what they want. There need to
be limits on Free Speech. And in an Al Gore presidency, there will be."
--Al Gore, in an interview filmed by Alexandra Pelosi
during the 2000 campaign.
Dan Rather, a well known Liberal Democrat, in a piece smearing G. W.
Bush for his service record--an issue which has been cleared up by Lt
Bush's commanding officer--asserted that his story was in fact accurate,
even though the documents presented were forgeries.
Only the sources on the Left may be considered valid. Even if proven
forgeries. All others may be dismissed with prejudice.
You know what they call that, don't you?
David?
You do know, don't you?
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
Unfortunately, David don't know Jack!
D Peter Maus
> D Peter Maus wrote:
>
>> You keep forgetting how many times Bill Clinton tried to pass the
>> Patriot Act. And how many times the Republican Congress blocked him.
>> Or that Projects Echelon and Carnivore were built during his
>> administration.
>
>
> It would appear government in general is out of control.
> They tend to forget THEY are the servants, not the people
> who sent them there.
>
>
On this point, we agree.
Something I told Senator Paul Simon, myself a few years ago during an
interview.
He was quite gracious and asked what my suggestions would be to
correct that. I told him to start with term limits.
I told him that He, himself, was the problem. And those like him who
believed they were part of a ruling class.
We had quite a discussion about that. Of course, had already planned
to step down, and announced a year later.
Yes, government, not only ours, but yours as well, is out of control.
And they need to be brought to the understanding that they are NOT
the source of power.
RHF
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:17 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:
> > Dave wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:
>
> >>> Denial is a marvelous thing.
>
> >> As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is
> >> wisdom.
>
> > So far, all I see from you is denial.
- A lot of what I see from you is baseless criticism
- and a complete unwillingness to back up anything
- you say with any kind of factual matter.
Ok Ok let me read it again 'factual matter' now that
is clearer.
But Dang Dave for a moment I thought that you had
written 'fecal matter' - considering the source ~ RHF
.
dxAce
RHF wrote:
RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the
'fecal matter'.
>
> .
m II
> RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the
> 'fecal matter'.
It's MALE fecal matter. Aroused yet?
dxAce
m II wrote:
> dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote:
>
> > RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the
> > 'fecal matter'.
>
> It's MALE fecal matter. Aroused yet?
No, but I'm certain that you are, dumbass!
Telamon
<c923c705-8a22-42c8...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
dogbertm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 2, 10:48 am, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 4:39 pm, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 19, 4:46 am, dave <noth...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >RHFwrote:
> > > - Refineries are running below 90% capacity.
> > > - Demand for gasoline is dropping.
> >
> > - Dave,
> > -
> > - 1 - Five to Six New* Eco-Friendly Oil Refineries would put
> > - Capacity at around 75% and provide a Strategic Production
> > - Reserve in case of natural disaster, accident or terrorism.
> > - + New Jobs for Americans building the Oil Refineries
> > - + + New Jobs for Americans working in the Oil Refineries
> > -
> > - 2 - Five to Six New Eco-Friendly Oil Refineries would
> > - allow the retirement of that many older Refineries that
> > - are bad for the Environment.
> > - + New Jobs for Americans building the Oil Refineries
> > -
> > - Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy.
> > -
> > - plan and build for the future -or- have 'no' future ~RHF
> > - .
> >
> > New US Oil Drilling Is Making Millionaires In North Dakota
> > -by- JAMES MacPHERSON
> > [AP]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_re_us/overnight_millionaires_1
> > North Dakota has nearly 4,000 Active Oil Wells Pumping.
> > Bakken Oil Shale Formation, a rich deposit that
> > thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
> > U.S. Geological Survey calls the Largest Continuous
> > Oil Accumulation it has ever assessed.
> > .
>
> Can't go on using oil for more than another 10 to 20 years due to the
> global warming emergency proven by science, dumbass.
Well, looks like your IQ is pretty low.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
m II
Speaking of your homosexual tendencies, may I present a blast from your
sordid past?
dxAce's invitations for some 'Mutual Respect':
=======================================
Jerking off not enough for you, boy?
Do you spit or swallow?
Very tasty!
Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals.
I interact on at least a weekly basis with them, and surprisingly
enough, they themselves utter the words 'damn faggots' with those who
tend to step out of line.
Is that the gay place to be?
Were you the blower or the blowee?
Believe it, it's like a dream to be with you again...
If you'd like to call me, I'm here to help you until 0330 GMT at:
616 335-9762
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Ya right, suck my dick...
I know it may be hard, but as you withdraw, it will shrink away..
===============================
Telamon
> dxAce wrote:
>
> >> It's what they've always done.
> >
> > Pretty darn amazing. I can't wait to find out what the next 'crisis' will
> > be.
>
> Well, Weapons of Mass Destruction has been already used. They even lied
> to the UN about it. I'm sure they'll think of something. People will
> believe ANYTHING.
>
Yeah, the last one was shipped to Canada.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
D Peter Maus <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> m II wrote:
> > dxAce wrote:
> >
> >>> It's what they've always done.
> >> Pretty darn amazing. I can't wait to find out what the next 'crisis' will
> >> be.
> >
> > Well, Weapons of Mass Destruction has been already used. They even lied
> > to the UN about it. I'm sure they'll think of something. People will
> > believe ANYTHING.
> >
>
> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
I find that very interesting.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
Dave <j...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> >> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
> >
> > Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
>
> A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
>
> http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq?
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
Dave <j...@somewhere.com> wrote:
Let's put some the your next bowl of crap you smoke then.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
> dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote:
>
> > However, a pile of crap (such as yourself) is an idiot!
< SNIP >
How well is your HAZMAT suit fitting? You have a lot of yellow cake to
move. Better get busy.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
Dave <j...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:
>
>
> > Denial is a marvelous thing.
>
> As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is
> wisdom.
You know nothing of courage just delusions.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
dxAce
m II wrote:
> dxAce wrote:
> >
> > m II wrote:
> >
> >> dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote:
> >>
> >>> RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the
> >>> 'fecal matter'.
> >> It's MALE fecal matter. Aroused yet?
> >
> > No, but I'm certain that you are, dumbass!
>
> Speaking of your homosexual tendencies, may I present a blast from your
> sordid past?
>
> dxAce's invitations for some 'Mutual Respect':
> =======================================
> Jerking off not enough for you, boy?
>
> Do you spit or swallow?
>
> Very tasty!
>
> Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals.
Ya know, I knew one years ago, and at the time he was kinda suspect.
Unfortunately, a good number of years ago, he and another of his cronies killed two
individuals whom were apparently involved in some kind of 'love triangle'.
The interesting thing is that one of the guys was a Canadian citizen (one who was
killed) who volunteered during the Vietnam War as a medic with (I think) the US Army.
Fortunately, he, and the other guy, were convicted in the past few weeks, after a 'cold
case investigation' had been re-opened, and apparently sentenced to spend the rest of
their lives in prison.
m II
>> A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
>>
>> http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
>>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
>
> Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq?
>
You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left
behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite.
God blessed thy depleted uranium
http://www.uruknet.biz/pic.php?f=du-baby20.jpeg
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml
mike
RHF
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:45:47 -0700, RHF wrote:
> > Dave Two Words : "Dirty Bomb" ~ RHF
>
> > Al Qaeda pursued a "Dirty Bomb"
- The subject was Iraq, not Al Qaeda.
Simply Matching "The Source" -with- "The Doer"
US Removes Uranium from Iraq -and-
Sets Back the Islam-O-Facist "Dirty Bomb" Project
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/b0022144f484dbcf
- A "dirty bomb" would contaminate a few acres,
- at best (worst).
Dave you are simply dismissing reality.
A Dirty Bomb like most Bombs can be small enough
to 'contaminate' an Office - the little terror
-or- BIG enough to Cover a City's Down Town Area.
Making that City's Down Town Area "Contaminate"
and a No-Man's Land for Years or Decades.
THE BIG TERROR !
A Small Plane {Crop-Duster} at 5K Feet with the right
Chemical Dispersal Equipment could Spiral Out from
City Hall and Around and Around Down Town Raining
Hell from Above. SPREADING THE TERROR !
For that matter the same Small Plane could cruise
along at 100 Feet over Bumper-to-Bumper Crowded
Freeway at 5 PM on a Hot Summer Day and Rain
Down Radioactive Contamination on both directions
of Commuter Traffic for 5 Miles or more.
TRANSMUTING THE TERROR ! from a single City's
Down Town Areas to an Metro's Whole Population via
Single-Point Urban & Suburban Migratory Dispersion.
- You have thrown your country away because you
- are afraid of a media created Boogeyman.
Dave - You Are The Boogeyman of Disbelief Playing
the Part of an Ostrich. The Terrorists Are Here . . .
http://www.realanimalfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ostrich_head.jpg
(OT) : Islam-O-Facist "Dirty Bomb" Terrorist Projects Continue . . .
.
m II
Ten thousand Gulf war vets dead. DU played a big role.
==========================================
However, the Iraqis are not the only targets. DU is not selective, and
Coalition forces are under its spell as well. Veterans have been
reporting various illnesses, which Pentagon and the govt try to supress.
From the first link:
In August 2004, the VA reported that over 518,739 Persian Gulf veterans
were on medical disability since 1991.
If my memory serves me right, since the first Gulf war, about 10k young
Gulf veterans died.
http://romunov.blogsome.com/2006/10/
=========================================
Telamon
<875131f3-7bac-4140...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
dogbertm...@gmail.com wrote:
< SNIP >
What a nut.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
dxAce
m II wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
> > In article <gOKdnTdsGvpjUxnV...@earthlink.com>,
> > Dave <j...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> >>>> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
> >>> Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
> >> A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
> >>
> >> http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
> >>
> >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
> >
> > Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq?
>
> Ten thousand Gulf war vets dead. DU played a big role.
>
> ==========================================
> However, the Iraqis are not the only targets. DU is not selective, and
> Coalition forces are under its spell as well. Veterans have been
> reporting various illnesses, which Pentagon and the govt try to supress.
> From the first link:
>
> In August 2004, the VA reported that over 518,739 Persian Gulf veterans
> were on medical disability since 1991.
>
> If my memory serves me right, since the first Gulf war, about 10k young
> Gulf veterans died.
How many Canucks damn near died on that rusty submarine that Ottawa decided to
buy...?
Telamon
> Telamon wrote:
>
> >> A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
> >>
> >> http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
> >>
> >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
> >
> > Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq?
> >
>
> You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left
> behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite.
< SNIP >
Excuse me, I was planing to bury it in your backyard all along.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
> Telamon wrote:
> > In article <gOKdnTdsGvpjUxnV...@earthlink.com>,
> > Dave <j...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> >>>> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
> >>> Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
> >> A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
> >>
> >> http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
> >>
> >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
> >
> > Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq?
>
>
>
> Ten thousand Gulf war vets dead. DU played a big role.
< SNIP >
The yellow cake is far worse so you had better get that HAZMAT suit on.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
dxAce
Telamon wrote:
Crap, he can't even handle his shine box, let alone figure out how to put a
HAZMAT suit on.
m II
>> You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left
>> behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite.
>
> Excuse me, I was planing to bury it in your backyard all along.
Think of this at Dinner time, ok?
======================================
http://www.uruknet.info/uruknet-images/290706du2.jpg
======================================
Video of American Doctor and DU:
======================================
"What we know from first hand experience and what happened to those of
us in Gulf War I and when we did our research for the US Army - the
first thing that hits you is respiratory problems, then you have the
rashes, then you start having permanent lung damage within a few months
because of radiation and chemical toxicity, then you have neurological
problems, then you have gastrointestinal problems."
http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=25167&s2=29
========================================
dxAce
m II wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
>
> >> You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left
> >> behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite.
>
> >
> > Excuse me, I was planing to bury it in your backyard all along.
>
> Think of this at Dinner time, ok?
Dinner time? Only fools like you eat poutine with used condoms as a garnish,
boy!
Telamon
> Telamon wrote:
>
>
> >> You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left
> >> behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite.
>
> >
> > Excuse me, I was planing to bury it in your backyard all along.
>
>
> Think of this at Dinner time, ok?
< SNIP >
I'm not going to look at it because coming from you I'm sure it's
something disgusting.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
m II
>> Think of this at Dinner time, ok?
>
> < SNIP >
>
> I'm not going to look at it because coming from you I'm sure it's
> something disgusting.
Yes it is. The US army did it. With your money.
http://www.uruknet.info/uruknet-images/290706du2.jpg
Don't you want to make sure you're getting your money's worth?
dxAce
m II wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
>
> >> Think of this at Dinner time, ok?
> >
> > < SNIP >
> >
> > I'm not going to look at it because coming from you I'm sure it's
> > something disgusting.
>
> Yes it is. The US army did it. With your money.
Then you oughta be happy! We did it with OUR money. Not Ottawa's money, and
surely not some shine box toter's money!
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> dogbertmcdogg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Can't go on using oil for more than another 10 to 20 years due to the
> > global warming emergency proven by science, dumbass.
>
> scientific community about the validity of the claims made by the global
> warming movement. To underscore the point, NOAA released figures this
> past quarter that indicate global temperatures have dropped by .6 of a
> degree in the last 12 months.
>
> As for greenhouse gasses...well, let's look at that. Carbon dioxide
> is only .04% of atmospheric content. Every living creature on the planet
> emits CO2. Even plants, in the absence of sunlight. In the presence of
> sunlight, they consume CO2 at a voracious rate.
>
> Water, on the other hand, is the primary greehouse gas, with a known
> impact on atmospheric temperature through cloud formation. And yet....no
> one has even hinted at it's regulation.
>
> A previous poster is correct....global warming is a socialist
> movement. It's goals are precisely the same as the alarmists who set
> their crosshairs on the oil industry when Rockefeller was building the
> Standard Oil monopoly.
There is no longer any serious debate.
Scientific bodies which AGREE that human activity drives global
warming: THIRTY FIVE
Scientific bodies which describe human caused global warming as a
"consensus": FIVE
Scientific bodies which DISPUTE human activity driving global
warming: ZERO (none, nada, zilch, ZERO)
QUOTE:
Statements by dissenting organizations
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of
national or international standing is known to reject the basic
findings of human influence on recent climate.[46]
NONE. NADA. ZERO. Stop lying about the science. It's case closed.
Scientific bodies CONCURRING with human causation of global warming:
Scientific consensus
A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate
change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific
organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their
statements:
* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The
conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[19]
* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate
scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused
primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the
National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the
science..."[48]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the
international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)."[49]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the
consensus of the international scientific community on climate change
science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of
information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its
method of achieving this consensus."[50]
* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such
that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual
scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet
to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and
can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply
divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific
consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately
five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who
represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to
the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of
the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They
provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of
consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be
placed on the various statements and conclusions."[51]
* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on
current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community
that human activities are the main source of climate change and that
the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this
change.” [52]
Statements by concurring organizations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming
Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth
Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause
of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global
warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in
average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[2]
The New York Times reports on the report:
The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has
begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for
centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90
percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of
fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it
nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[3]
The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone
strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made
global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies
with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that
strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.[4]
The Associated Press summarizes the position on sea level rise:
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end
of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if
recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues.[5]
InterAcademy Council
As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering
academies,[6][7] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in
2007 entitled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving
detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of
essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change
caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[8]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy
efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[9]
Joint science academies' statement 2008
In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies
of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of
the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that
climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is
influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other
actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate
economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon
society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national
behaviour.”[10]
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico,
Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies
of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of
the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the
confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research.
Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:
It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very
likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human
interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the
environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico,
Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil,
China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in
the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to
climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific
understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action[11], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC
consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia,
the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment
Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement
explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the
scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science
academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium,
Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India,
Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom.[12]
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
In October 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering
and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment
and Sustainable Growth[13]
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century
is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and
this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions
continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and
control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as
possible.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In March of 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a
formal declaration in which they stated, “Human activity is most
likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming
over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-
term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice,
widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind
patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation,
heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above
development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s
future. “[14]
Network of African Science Academies
In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint
“statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change”
to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.
“A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global
scientific community that human activities are the main source of
climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely
responsible for driving this change.”
“The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to
public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate
and sustainability.”[15]
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon,
Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan,
Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of
Sciences.
National Research Council (US)
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the
National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions [16]. This report explicitly endorses
the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing
the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely
mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some
significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural
variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are
expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community
on this issue.[17]
European Science Foundation
The European Science Foundation has issued a Position Paper on climate
change in which they concur, "There is now convincing evidence that
since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in
increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major
agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global
climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average
temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation
and precipitation patterns." The paper concluded, "While on-going
national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently
in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several
decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change
through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."[18]
American Association for the Advancement of Science
In December of 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science adopted an official statement on climate change in which they
stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change
caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing
threat to society....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."[19]
Federation of American Scientists
In their Energy and Environment Overview, the Federation of American
Scientists state, “There is no serious doubt that human activity is
altering the earth's climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even
skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence
demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate
is about how best to respond." [20]
World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the
Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO
concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that
human activities are indeed changing the composition of the
atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for
energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the
present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the
past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most
authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [21]
American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their
council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at
the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been
increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that
the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over
the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been
made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward
improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities
have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency
are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance
of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase,
we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither
planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented
challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant
impacts on our natural and societal systems.[22]
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment
Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the
report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate
scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the
result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in
motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on
will determine how worse it will get.” [23]
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a
Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, “Global climate
change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely
that those human activities that have increased the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for
the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases
in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the
enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the
industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past
650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil
fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[24]
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment
carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states
that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate."[25]
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric
Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada
stating that "We concur with the climate science assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We
endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and
stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly
unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the
world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s
natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in
climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more
evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy
for adaptation to projected changes."[26]
International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for
Quaternary Research reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges
all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.
“Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric
ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial
levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to
rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing
the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a
huge challenge but must be a global priority.” [27]
American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible
Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise
of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the
growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially
over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” [28]
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is
now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."[29]
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July of 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
(IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing
Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and
widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the
International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national
bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific
evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent
climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on
combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy
will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface
temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related
consequences to the environment and society.” [30]
International Union of Geological Sciences
In their Climate Change prospectus for the International Year of
Planet Earth project, the International Union of Geological Sciences
(IUGS) stated, “The idea that there is a strong human imprint on
recent climate change is now compelling, with forest clearing,
building and man-made gas emissions all having a strong influence on
Earth’s warming.”[31]
We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric
chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity.
[32]
European Geosciences Union
In July 2005, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position
statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on
global response to climate change. Additionally, the EGU concurred
that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science
supported by the major science academies around the world and by the
vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented
by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” [33]
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
The Canadian Federation Of Earth Sciences has issued a position paper
on global climate change in which they state, “ Canada's Earth
scientists also recognize that humans are adding greenhouse gases
(GHGs) to our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. The level of CO2
in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000
years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural
systems as a result….These could include: increased frequency and
severity of drought, coastal erosion, sea level change, permafrost
degradation, impact of reduced glacier cover on water resources,
groundwater quality and quantity, and occurrence of climate-related
natural hazards such as flooding, dust storms and landslides.”[34]
Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are
due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
require active, effective, long-term planning."[35]
American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [36] adopted by the
society in 2003 and revised in 2007 affirms that rising levels of
greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global
surface temperature to be warmer:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.
Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of
the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain
glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the
length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are
not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric
abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human
activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures
increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of
2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others
since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected
to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within
this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except
Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent
changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this
regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many
AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our
scientific understanding of the climate.
American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[37]
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by
the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective
expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and
understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of
agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing
and human activities are contributing to that change.
American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the
AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[38]
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has
endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the
American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.
American Physical Society
In November of 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an
official statement on climate change: "Emissions of greenhouse gases
from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well
as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from
fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural
processes.
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases beginning now."[39]
American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly
demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in
response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and
absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room
for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities.
The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the
risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially
disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role
emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have
been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS,
2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American
Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society
(AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten
other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement
reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions
required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.
[40]
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and
proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change
as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that
addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing
our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new
economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian
Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[41]
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program
commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of
21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate
change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:
Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate
system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and
stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the
past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by
the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols
and tropospheric ozone) alone.[42]
American Statistical Association
On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of
Directors adopted a statement on climate change:
The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions. ... Over the course of four
assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as
authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it
does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available.
ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC
process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the
assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the
statistical community.[43]
Noncommittal statements
American Association of State Climatologists
The 2001 statement from the American Association of State
Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to
climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having
an effect on climate:
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex,
nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s
environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities
have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are
not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use
and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate
prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated
skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important
climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing
rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are
the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than
annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate
variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The
difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of
predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow
for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the
AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be
based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy
alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic
conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political
debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of
common sense action to reduce societal and environmental
vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable
potential exists to improve policies related to climate.[44]
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position
Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is
divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on
recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate
simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as
reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these
scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming
projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in
past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not
necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some
models."[45]
Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major
scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human
influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council
of the American Quaternary Association.[46] Explaining the plan for a
revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that
"Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG
does not alter its position on global climate change ... . And I have
been told of members who already have resigned in previous years
because of our current global climate change position. ... The current
policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our
members and prospective members."[47]
Statements by dissenting organizations
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of
national or international standing is known to reject the basic
findings of human influence on recent climate.[46]
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> D Peter Maus wrote:
> > dogbertmcdogg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Can't go on using oil for more than another 10 to 20 years due to the
> > > global warming emergency proven by science, dumbass.
>
> > Nothing has been proven. There is considerable debate within the
> > scientific community about the validity of the claims made by the global
> > warming movement. To underscore the point, NOAA released figures this
> > past quarter that indicate global temperatures have dropped by .6 of a
> > degree in the last 12 months.
>
> > As for greenhouse gasses...well, let's look at that. Carbon dioxide
> > is only .04% of atmospheric content. Every living creature on the planet
> > emits CO2. Even plants, in the absence of sunlight. In the presence of
> > sunlight, they consume CO2 at a voracious rate.
>
> > Water, on the other hand, is the primary greehouse gas, with a known
> > impact on atmospheric temperature through cloud formation. And yet....no
> > one has even hinted at it's regulation.
>
> > A previous poster is correct....global warming is a socialist
> > movement. It's goals are precisely the same as the alarmists who set
> > their crosshairs on the oil industry when Rockefeller was building the
> > Standard Oil monopoly.
>
> have done over the years to instill fear in the people. If I recall, there may
> me a link on his site to the info, though I've not looked at it.
>
> The guest made a point about what the left will do when the 'global warming'
> craze subsides and that will be to manufacture another crisis and on and on it
> will go.
Savage is a nutcase.
The science is case closed.
You are wrong.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> Dave wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
>
> >>> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> >>> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
> >> Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
>
> > A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
>
> >http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
>
> >http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
>
Like your ridiculous claims on global warming science, which are
entirely false?
dogbertm...@gmail.com
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> On Jul 20, 11:18 pm, dogbertmcdogg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 3:15 pm, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 18, 2:42 pm, Dave <j...@somewhere.com> wrote:> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:05:33 -0700, wasatch wrote:
> > > > > <Mr. Bush is about to propose offshore oil drilling even though there is
> > > > > plenty...
>
> > > > > U.S. imports 70% that we use.
>
> > > - - How to Find Gold : Dig For It!
> > > - -
> > > - - More Oil : Drill For It!
>
> > > - There is no shortage of crude oil.
>
> > > Dave that is Factually True
> > > -but- That Vast Supply of Oil is still in the Ground.
> > > -specifically- In the USA for the USA.
> > > -ps- Plus a Whole Lot More Coal Too.
>
> > > First - There is a Shortage of Getting the Oil
> > > out of the Ground to meet the Demand.
> > > -specifically- In the USA for the USA.
> > > -solution- Drill for more Oil in the USA.
>
> > > Second - There is a Shortage of Oil Refining
> > > Capablility to meet the Demand.
> > > -specifically- In the USA for the USA.
> > > -solution- Build more Oil Refineries in the USA.
>
> > > ALTERNATIVE : WALK ! -or- Go Nowhere.
>
> > > facts are facts ~ RHF
> > > .
>
> - No, the fact is you don't care about the future.
>
> I 'care' about the "Future" Every Day ~ RHF
>
> - Carbon based fuel is NOT an option for long term energy use.
>
> I Am Carbon Based - What Are You "Silly-Com" ?
> {Silly Communist}
>
> - Perhaps you haven't heard about global warming?
>
> D'Oh ! The Global Warning Mantra :
> Say It Ten Times in a Row
> -and- You Are Full of Hot Air.
>
> - You should be informed.
>
> D'Oh ! . . . and you are ? - Not ! ~ RHF
> .
You're spouting nonsense.
You have no idea what scientists say. You're getting your "science"
from nutcase political hotair types.
D Peter Maus
You've proven my point. A closed mind. Not very scientific.
You, my friend, are the one in error.
D Peter Maus
And you prove a number of my points for me.
Thank you for you cooperation.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> Dave wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
>
> >>> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
> >>> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
> >> Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
>
> > A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
>
> >http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
>
> >http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
>
> Denial is a marvelous thing.
Especially yours.
The OVERWHELMING majority of scientific opinion agrees that humans are
causing global warming, and that consensus is growing stronger with
every passing month,, quite to the contrary of your claims. You are
not as well read on science as you think in light of the overwhelming
disproof of your views below:
Note that "concurring" opinions support the view that humans are
causing the observed global warming, and "dissenting" bodies DO NOT
EXIST.
Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
National and international science academies and professional
societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate
change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have
largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing
body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and
other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger
evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities."[1]
This article documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis
reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and
surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the
views of individual scientists, individual universities or
laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as
petitions.
Energy portal
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Statements by concurring organizations
o 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
o 1.2 InterAcademy Council
o 1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
o 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
o 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
o 1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
o 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and
Technological Sciences
o 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
o 1.9 Network of African Science Academies
o 1.10 National Research Council (US)
o 1.11 European Science Foundation
o 1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
o 1.13 Federation of American Scientists
o 1.14 World Meteorological Organization
o 1.15 American Meteorological Society
o 1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
o 1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
o 1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
o 1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric
Sciences
o 1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
o 1.21 American Quaternary Associati
o 1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of
London
o 1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
o 1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
o 1.25 European Geosciences Union
o 1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
o 1.27 Geological Society of America
o 1.28 American Geophysical Union
o 1.29 American Astronomical Society
o 1.30 American Institute of Physics
o 1.31 American Physical Society
o 1.32 American Chemical Society
o 1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers
Australia)
o 1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
o 1.35 American Statistical Association
* 2 Noncommittal statements
o 2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
o 2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists
* 3 Statements by dissenting organizations
* 4 Scientific consensus
* 5 Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
o 5.1 Oreskes, 2004
o 5.2 Bray and von Storch, 2003
o 5.3 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
o 5.4 Bray and von Storch, 1996
o 5.5 Other older surveys of scientists
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 External links
Statements by concurring organizations
InterAcademy Council
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Quaternary Association
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
American Statistical Association
Noncommittal statements
Statements by dissenting organizations
Scientific consensus
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific
consensus on global warming. Few have been conducted within the last
ten years.
Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes
summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[53]
The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928
abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and
2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes
divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the
consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus
position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three
categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the
consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no
position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the
abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author
found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating
impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might
believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these
papers argued that point."
Bray and von Storch, 2003
A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch[54]
[55] Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected,
but the survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.
[56][57] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different
countries. One of the questions asked was "To what extent do you agree
or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic
causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7
indicating strongly disagree. The results showed a mean of 3.62, with
50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses
(9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72%
to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80%
rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the
phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate
policy decisions."
The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on
the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate
scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required
entry of a username and password, but the username and password were
circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the
internet.[58][59] Bray and von Storch defended their results[60] and
accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias.
Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy
surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to
climate change[61]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global
warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who
considered warming to be largely man-made. The survey further found
that 58% disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's
assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific
opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global
warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent agreed that "current science
is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures
caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do
not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are
attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."
Sixty percent of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2
emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global
temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990
levels would not prevent rising temperatures. Thirty nine percent
agreed and 33% disagreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the
earth is headed for another glacial period,"[62] though the time scale
for the next glacial period was not specified.
Bray and von Storch, 1996
In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate
scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters.
The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society.[63] The paper addressed the views of
climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey
questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most
of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and
appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide
disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed
that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited.
The abstract says:
The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the
utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough
knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted.
However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to
explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate
change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the
calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific
advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative
judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate
change issue.
The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects
of climate science, model formulation, and utility, and science/public/
policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from
the body of the paper:
The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-
tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a
total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany... The number
of completed returns was as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany
228, a response rate of approximately 40%...
...With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that
predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith
in the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science
knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to
make reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to
indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a
possibility... mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years...
mean of 5.2 for periods of 100 years...
...a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of
agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is
already underway or will occur without modification to human
behavior... the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating
a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed
been detected and is underway.... Regarding global warming as being a
possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as
indicated by the mean of 2.6.
Other older surveys of scientists
Note that the following surveys are over 15 years old. The state of
climate science and the beliefs of climate scientists have changed
radically since their time, as demonstrated by the reviews cited
above.
* Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey
shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global
Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1-3
* Stewart, T.R., Mumpower, J.L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992).
Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the
results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental
Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.
* In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media
commissioned a Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical
Union and the American Meteorological Society along with an analysis
of reporting on global warming by the Center for Media and Public
Affairs, a report on which was issued in 1992.[64] Accounts of the
results of that survey differ in their interpretation and even in the
basic statistical percentages:
o Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report
said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming
was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[65]
o George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming
has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post,
September 3, 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists
involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global
warming is occurring now."[66]
o A 1993 publication by the Heartland Institute reports: "A
Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American
Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society-the two
professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in
climate research-found that 18 percent thought some global warming had
occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell,
and 49 percent believed no warming had taken place."[67]
See also
* Scientific consensus
* Australian Medical Association position statement on climate
change, Sept. 21, 2005
* Global warming controversy
* National Registry of Environmental Professionals survey on
climate change
* List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment
of global warming
References
1. ^ Working Group 1, IPCC.
2. ^ "Warming 'very likely' human-made", BBC News, BBC
(2007-02-01). Retrieved on 2007-02-01.
3. ^ Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ Rosenthal,
Elisabeth for The New York Times, February 2007
4. ^ On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty
Stevens, William for The New York Times, February 2007
5. ^ U.N. Report: Global Warming Man-Made, Basically Unstoppable
Fox News, February 2007
6. ^ New York Times Panel Urges Global Shift on Sources of Energy
7. ^ About IAC
8. ^ IAC report Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy
Future Forward
9. ^ IAC report Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy
Future 5.2 Conclusion
10. ^ US National Academies’ news page. See ‘’ Statement on Climate
Change’’.
11. ^ Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate
change June 2005
12. ^ The Science of Climate Change from www.royalsociety.org
13. ^ CAETS Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth
14. ^ "Lets be Honest". European Academy of Sciences and Arts
(2007-03-03). Retrieved on 2008-04-01.
15. ^ "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies
(NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate
change". Network of African Science Academies (2007). Retrieved on
2008-03-29.
16. ^ Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
17. ^ Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
18. ^ European Science Foundation Position Paper Impacts of Climate
Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment - Ecosystems
Approach pp. 7-10
19. ^ a b AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change www.aaas.org
December 2006
20. ^ FAS web page, retrieved 3/25/08
21. ^ WMO’s Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of
the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
22. ^ Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and
Related Sciences from www.ametsoc.org
23. ^ Royal Meteorological Society’s statement on the IPCC’s Fourth
Assessment Report.
24. ^ AMOS Statement on Climate Change
25. ^ Position Statement on Global Warming - Canadian Meteorological
and Oceanographic Society (Updated, 2007)
26. ^ CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005
27. ^ INQUA Statement On Climate Change.
28. ^ AMQUA “Petroleum Geologists’ Award to Novelist Crichton Is
Inappropriate”
29. ^ Global warming: a perspective from earth history www.geolsoc.org.uk
30. ^ IUGG Resolution 6
31. ^ [ http://www.iugs.org/PDF/05_climatechange.pdf IUGS pdf
Climate Change p.6]
32. ^ [ http://www.iugs.org/PDF/05_climatechange.pdf IUGS pdf
Climate Change p.9]
33. ^ Position Statement of the Division of Atmospheric and Climate
Sciences of the European Geosciences Union on Climate Change.
34. ^ CFES ‘’Global Climate Change’’
35. ^ Global Climate Change Position Statement
36. ^ Human Impacts on Climate
37. ^ Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate
change, American Astronomical Society, 2004
38. ^ Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate
change, American Institute of Physics, 2003
39. ^ [1], American Physical Society, 2007
40. ^ "Statement on Global Climate Change". American Chemical
Society (2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-09.
41. ^ Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy February 2007
42. ^ Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere www.climatescience.gov
43. ^ [http://www.amstat.org/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=climatechange
American Statistical Association Statement on Climate Change
44. ^ Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
45. ^ Position Statement: Climate Change from http://dpa.aapg.org
46. ^ a b Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum
Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos 87 (36).
Retrieved on 2007-01-23. “The AAPG stands alone among scientific
societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.”
47. ^ Volunteers: Good For AAPG Climate
48. ^ Understanding and Responding to Climate Change
49. ^ Joint Science Academies' Statement
50. ^ The Science of Climate Change
51. ^ Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and
Related Sciences February 2003
52. ^ "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies
(NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate
change". Network of African Science Academies (2007). Retrieved on
2008-03-29.
53. ^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)).
"Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change".
Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. (see also for
an exchange of letters to Science)
54. ^ survey of climate scientists 1996 - 2003
55. ^ The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate
Change
56. ^ Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global
warming', Matthews, Robert Telegraph, May 2005
57. ^ Climate of Hostility Surrounds Global Warming Debate
58. ^ "Useless on-line survey of climate scientists"
59. ^ DIALOG and DISCCRS News
60. ^ Climate scientists' views on climate change: a survey Hans von
Storch and Dennis Bray
61. ^ Citizens For a Sound Economy Foundation
62. ^ Satellite Temperature Data: How Accurate? Cooler Heads
Coalition October 1997
63. ^ Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch (1999). "Climate Science: An
Empirical Example of Postnormal Science". Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society. Retrieved on 2007-09-04.
64. ^ T. R. Stewart, J. L. Mumpower, P. Reagan-Cirincione,
"Scientists' Agreement and Disagreement about Global Climate Change:
Evidence from Surveys", 15.
65. ^ R. Nixon, "Limbaughesque Science", citing a press release by
Gallup in the San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/92.
66. ^ Steve Rendall, "The Hypocrisy of George Will", FAIR report,
citing the San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/92.
67. ^ J.L. Best et al. Eco-Sanity, p. 55
External links
* US EPA climate change and global warming website
* Sherwood Rowland (Nobel Laureate for work on ozone depletion)
gives his opinion on climate change 2006 Freeview video provided by
the Vega Science Trust.
* Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,
National Academy of Sciences
[show]
v • d • e
Global warming and climate change
[show]
Temperatures
Instrumental record · Satellite record · Past 1,000 years · Since 1880
· Geologic record
[show]
Causes
Anthropogenic
Aviation · Carbon dioxide · Climate sensitivity · Global dimming ·
Global warming potential · Greenhouse effect · Greenhouse gases ·
Keeling Curve · Land use and forestry · Urban heat island
Natural
Albedo · Bond events · Cloud forcing · Glaciation · Global cooling ·
Ocean variability (AMO · ENSO · IOD · PDO) · Orbital variations ·
Orbital forcing · Radiative forcing · Solar variation · Volcanism
Opinion and
controversy
Scientific opinion · Scientists opposing the mainstream assessment ·
Climate change denial
[show]
Models and politics
Models
Global climate model
Politics
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC / FCCC)
· Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
[show]
Potential effects and issues
General
Climate change and agriculture · Drought · Economics of global warming
· Glacier retreat · Mass extinction · Ozone depletion · Ocean
acidification · Sea level rise · Season creep · Shutdown of
thermohaline circulation
By country
Australia · India · United States
[show]
Mitigation
Kyoto Protocol
Clean Development Mechanism · Joint Implementation · Bali roadmap
Governmental
European Climate Change Programme · United Kingdom Climate Change
Programme · Oil phase-out in Sweden
Schemes
Emissions trading · Personal carbon trading · Carbon tax · Carbon
offset · Carbon credit · Carbon dioxide sink (Carbon sequestration) ·
Cap and Share
Energy conservation
Efficient energy use · Renewable energy · Renewable energy
commercialization · Renewable energy development · Soft energy path
Other
G8 Climate Change Roundtable · Individual and political action on
climate change
[show]
Proposed adaptations
Strategies
Damming glacial lakes · Drought tolerance · Irrigation investment ·
Rainwater storage · Sustainable development · Weather control
Programmes
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change · Land Allocation Decision Support
System
Category:Global warming · Category:Climate change · Glossary of
climate change
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change"
Categories: Climate change assessment and attribution | Global warming
Hidden category: Semi-protected
Views
* Article
* Discussion
* View source
* History
Personal tools
* Log in / create account
Navigation
* Main page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article
Search
Interaction
* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help
Toolbox
* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page
Languages
* Polski
Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation
* This page was last modified on 19 July 2008, at 09:34.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit
charity.
D Peter Maus
> On Jul 21, 11:46 am, D Peter Maus <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote:
>>>>> Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's
>>>>> 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada.
>>>> Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned.
>>> A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat.
>>> http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/
>>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
>> Denial is a marvelous thing.
>
> Especially yours.
> The OVERWHELMING majority of scientific opinion agrees that humans are
> causing global warming, and that consensus is growing stronger with
> every passing month,, quite to the contrary of your claims. You are
> not as well read on science as you think in light of the overwhelming
> disproof of your views below:
>
Proving what? That faced with withdrawal of funding for research,
that faced with loss of tenure, position, certification that these
individuals and organizations have signed on to the agenda?
Not so convincing.
Science is not about concensus. Politics is about concensus. Science
is about findings based on data based on empirical findings, modelling
and other research.
No one wants to address the .6 degree global temperature drop this
year alone. Because to do so will threaten jobs, funding, professional
credentials.
Real science need not be afraid of a counter position. And yet, this
agenda seeks to silence by any means necessary, even censorship by the
government, those who speak out against it.
This is not the first time this has happened in human history.
Galilleo, Keppler, Copernicus, Ptolemy...all faced censure, censor, and
even ostracism for their science. And in each case, they were right,
against the concensus.
Joseph Lister was mocked, humiliated threatened with being drummed
out of the medical corps for suggesting that doctors could spread
contagion through bacterial contamination. He faced loss of job, career,
credentials for even suggesting that doctors should wash their hands
between patients. And he was right.
Concensus only means there is concensus. It doesn't mean that there
is a scientific truth. And in each case where there has been concensus,
there has been opposition that has been right.
In the 20th century, Eugenics was held, by a concensus of scientists,
to be the true way to improving the human species. Opposition was
silenced, by withdrawal of funding, censure, censorship loss of
credentials and even loss of life. Eugenics was proven a hoax. A fraud.
A political agenda wrapped in a lab coat. Held by concensus to be a truth.
It was not.
The clue that there is something political driving this is the length
to which the agenda will go to silence opposition.
That's not science. Science welcomes contrary opinion. It's part of
the scientific process.
Concensus is not.
There is nothing overwhelming in this scientific opinion except the
expressed intent to behave like thugs when evidence to the contrary is
presented.
That's not science.
And it disproves nothing.