Right Wing's Global Warming Denial Takes New Form, Now Attacks Advice Of Military Generals
Roger Coppock
Of Military Generals
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes and House Select
Committee on Global Warming Chairman Ed Markey recently pushed through
a bill that would authorize a National Intelligence Assessment to
study the impact of global warming on national security and fund
research by the Defense Department into the consequences for U.S.
military operations posed by climate change.
Global warming deniers have jolted into action. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-
MI) - who has expressed doubts about the need to urgently address
global warming - said, "There's no value added by the intelligence
community" in assessing global warming's security impact. And the
House Republican Policy Committee put out this farcical statement:
******** see article for statement *********
The right-wing's attempts to politicize this issue reveal their
ignorance of the assessments made by national security experts. Last
month, the Military Advisory Board, a panel of esteemed retired
military officers including President Bush's former Middle East envoy
Gen. Anthony Zinni, recommended that "national security consequences
of climate change should be fully integrated into national security
and national defense strategies."
In its first hearing, the House Select Committee on Global Warming
heard testimony from Ret. Gen. Gordon Sullivan, chairman of the
Military Advisory Board, who said:
Speaking for the members of the Military Advisory Board, I am
confident in stating we as individuals and collectively support your
legislative initiative to authorize a National Intelligence Estimate
on the National Security Implications of Climate Change.
Earlier this year, the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War
College assessed:
The significance of the climate change challenge and its requirement
for better cooperation across governments and agencies might be best
addressed in the United States by a new National Security Act of 2010.
In 2003, the Pentagon issued a report stating the following:
Because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt
climate change...should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern.
The national security consequences of climate change are real and
predictable. Leading environmental scientists have already said that
climate change will bring about reduced access to fresh water,
impaired food production, more diseases, land loss and displacement of
major populations. This is most likely to affect the world's poorest
regions, thus providing an incubator for extremist ideologies and
terrorism and fights over scarce resources.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/09/global-warming-national-security/
Bawana
The co2agw house of cards is falling.
The NEW cry of the loons:
WELL, NOBODY EVER SAID co2 ALONE CAUSED AGW!!!
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
GLOBAL WARMING
Not the End of the World as We Know It
By Olaf Stampf
How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible
droughts headed our way? Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the
latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions
about tomorrow's climate.
Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a
heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate
change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a
paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that
temperatures were rising -- and that it would be a blessing for all.
Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the
release of carbon dioxide -- or carbonic acid as it was then known --
through burning coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise
in temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, "by the influence of the
increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to
enjoy ages with more equable and better climates," potentially making poor
harvests and famine a thing of the past.
Arrhenius was merely expressing a view that was firmly entrenched in the
collective consciousness of the day: warm times are good times; cold times
are bad.
During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300 A.D.,
for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and sailed to North
America. New cities were built all across Europe, and the continent's
population grew from 30 million to 80 million.
The consequences of the colder temperatures that plunged civilization into
the so-called Little Ice Age for several centuries after 1300 were
devastating. Summers were rainy, winters cold, and in many places
temperatures were too low for grain crops to mature. Famines and epidemics
raged, and average life expectancy dropped by 10 years. In Germany,
thousands of villages were abandoned and entire stretches of land
depopulated.
The shock produced by the cold was as deep-seated it was long-lasting. When
temperatures plunged unexpectedly once again in the 1960s, many
meteorologists were quick to warn people about the coming of a new ice
age -- supposedly triggered by man-made air pollution. Hardly anyone at the
time believed a warming trend could pose a threat.
It was not until the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980s that
everything suddenly changed. From then on it was almost a foregone
conclusion that global warming could only be perceived as a disaster for the
earth's climate. Environmentalists, adopting a strategy typical of the
Catholic Church, have been warning us about the horrors of greenhouse gas
hell ever since -- painting it as a punishment for the sin of meddling with
creation. What was conveniently ignored, however, is that humanity has been
reshaping the planet for a very long time, first by clearing forests and
plowing fields, and later by building roads, cities and factories.
In the age of climate change, it has become a popular social pastime to
scour the weather forecast for omens of doom. Has it ever been as hot in
April as it is this year? Is this lack of rain normal? Could all this mean
that the end is nigh?
Nowadays hardly anyone dares to question the increasingly shrill warnings
about our climate, as more and more people jump on the hand-wringing
bandwagon. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, for example,
recently said that climate change poses at least as big a danger to the
world as war. German Chancellor Angela Merkel agrees, calling developments
"more than alarming," and asking: "Are we willing to accept the fact that we
now have completely unprecedented weather phenomena, such as tropical nights
in the Harz (Mountains) region?" The fact that tropical nights, as every
meteorologist knows, are nothing new in Germany -- every summer has always
had a few -- seems to have escaped her attention.
The apocalyptic mood seems to grow each time the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a new section of
its climate change report. Climate hysteria appears to be more contagious
than a flu epidemic. "We only have 13 years left to save the earth,"
screamed a recent front-page headline in the German tabloid Bild. "If
mankind is unable to stop the greenhouse effect by the year 2020, it will
bring about its own demise -- and a horribly tortured one at that."
.
But how bad is climate change really? Will global warming trigger plagues of
Biblical proportions? Can we look forward to endless droughts and
catastrophic floods?
Or will Arrhenius end up being right after all? Could rising temperatures
lead to higher crop yields and more tourism in many places? In other words,
is humanity actually creating new paradises?
The truth is probably somewhere between these two extremes. Climate change
will undoubtedly have losers -- but it will also have winners. There will be
a reshuffling of climate zones on earth. And there is something else that we
can already say with certainty: The end of the world isn't coming any time
soon.
Largely unnoticed by the public, climate researchers are currently embroiled
in their own struggle over who owns the truth. While some have always seen
themselves as environmental activists aiming to shake humanity out of its
complacency, others argue for a calmer and more rational approach to the
unavoidable.
One member of the levelheaded camp is Hans von Storch, 57, a prominent
climate researcher who is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at
the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht in northern Germany. "We have to take
away people's fear of climate change," Storch told DER SPIEGEL in a recent
interview. "Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests
whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people."
Keeping a cool head is a good idea because, for one thing, we can no longer
completely prevent climate change. No matter how much governments try to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it will only be possible to limit the rise
in global temperatures to about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)
by the end of the century. But even this moderate warming would likely have
far fewer apocalyptic consequences than many a prophet of doom would have us
believe.
For one thing, the more paleontologists and geologists study the history of
the earth's climate, the more clearly do they recognize just how much
temperatures have fluctuated in both directions in the past. Even major
fluctuations appear to be completely natural phenomena.
Additionally, some environmentalists doubt that the large-scale extinction
of animals and plants some have predicted will in fact come about. "A warmer
climate helps promote species diversity," says Munich zoologist Josef
Reichholf.
Also, more detailed simulations have allowed climate researchers to paint a
considerably less dire picture than in the past -- gone is the talk of giant
storms, the melting of the Antarctic ice shield and flooding of major
cities.
Improved regionalized models also show that climate change can bring not
only drawbacks, but also significant benefits, especially in northern
regions of the world where it has been too cold and uncomfortable for human
activity to flourish in the past. However it is still a taboo to express
this idea in public.
For example, countries like Canada and Russia can look forward to better
harvests and a blossoming tourism industry, and the only distress the
Scandinavians will face is the guilty conscience that could come with
benefiting from global warming.
There is no doubt that there will be droughts in other parts of the world,
especially in subtropical regions. But the widespread assumption that it is
developing countries -- that is, the world's poor -- who will, as always, be
the ones to suffer is incorrect. According to current predictions,
precipitation in large parts of Africa will hardly decrease at all, except
in the southern part of the continent. In fact, these same forecasts show
the Sahel, traditionally a region beset by drought and famine, actually
becoming wetter.
By contrast, some wealthy industrialized nations -- in fact, those
principally responsible for climate change -- will likely face growing
problems related to drought. The world's new drought zones lie in the
southern United States and Australia, but also in Mediterranean countries
like Spain, Italy and Greece.
All of this will lead to a major shift within Europe, potentially leading to
tough times for southern Spain's mega-resorts and boom times for hotels
along the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts. While the bulk of summer
vacationers will eventually lose interest in roasting on Spain's Costa del
Sol, Mediterranean conditions could prevail between the German North Sea
island of Sylt and Bavaria's Lake Starnberg. The last few weeks of spring in
Germany offered a taste of what's to come, as sun-loving crowds packed
Berlin's urban beach bars and Munich's beer gardens.
The predicted temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius would mean that
summers in Hamburg, not far from the North Sea coast, would be as warm as
they are today in the southwestern city of Freiburg, while conditions in
Freiburg would be more like those in Marseille today. Germany will
undoubtedly be one of the beneficiaries of climate change. Perhaps palm
trees will be growing on the island of Helgoland in the North Sea soon, and
German citizens will be saving billions in heating costs -- which in turn
would lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions.
But climate change will also have its drawbacks. While German summers will
be less rainy, fall and winter rainfall in the country's north will increase
by up to 30 percent -- and snow will be a thing of the past. Heavy downpours
will also become more common. To avoid flooding, steps will have to be taken
to provide better drainage for fields and farmlands, as well as to restore
natural flood plains.
Meanwhile, the Kiel Institute for World Economics warns that higher
temperatures could mean thousands of heat-related deaths every year. But the
extrapolations that lead to this dire prediction are based on the mortality
rate in the unusually hot summer of 2003, for which Germans were wholly
unprepared. But if hot summer days do become the norm, people will simply
adjust by taking siestas and installing air-conditioning.
The medical benefits of higher average temperatures have also been ignored.
According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures
will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany
attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause
super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented
fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any
rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize.
"According to our computer model, neither the number nor intensity of storms
is increasing," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max
Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate
research centers. "Only the boundaries of low-pressure zones are changing
slightly, meaning that weather is becoming more severe in Scandinavia and
less so in the Mediterranean."
According to another persistent greenhouse legend, massive flooding will
strike major coastal cities, raising horrific scenarios of New York, London
and Shanghai sinking into the tide. However this horror story is a relic of
the late 1980s, when climate simulations were far less precise than they are
today. At the time, some experts believed that the Antarctic ice shield
could melt, which would in fact lead to a dramatic 60-meter (197-foot) rise
in sea levels. The nuclear industry quickly seized upon and publicized the
scenario, which it recognized as an argument in favor of its emissions-free
power plants.
But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South
Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic
is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to
melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models
suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will
cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow
over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise
in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches).
It's a different story in the warmer regions surrounding the North Pole.
According to an American study published last week, the Arctic could be
melting even faster than previously assumed. But because the Arctic sea ice
already floats in the water, its melting will have virtually no effect on
sea levels.
Nevertheless, sea levels will rise worldwide as higher temperatures cause
the water in the oceans to expand. In addition, more water will flow into
the ocean with the gradual thawing of the Greenland ice sheet. All things
considered, however, in the current IPCC report climatologists are
predicting a rise in sea levels of only about 40 centimeters (16 inches) --
compared with the previous estimate of about one meter (more than three
feet). A 40-centimeter rise in sea levels will hardly result in more
catastrophic flooding. "We have more computer models and better ones today,
and the prognoses have become more precise as a result," explains Peter
Lemke of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the
northern German port city of Bremerhaven.
Some researchers do, however, estimate that regional effects could produce
an 80-centimeter (31-inch) rise in the sea level along Germany's North Sea
coast. This will lead to higher storm surges -- a problem the local
population, already accustomed to severe weather, could easily address by
building taller dikes.
Another comforting factor -- especially for poorer countries like
Bangladesh -- is that none of these changes will happen overnight, but
gradually over several decades. "We still have enough time to react," says
Storch.
In short, the longer researchers allow their supercomputers to crunch the
numbers, the more does the expected deluge dissipate. A rise in sea levels
of several meters could only occur if Greenland were largely ice-free, but
this is something scientists don't expect to happen for at least a few more
centuries or even millennia. This lengthy timeframe raises the question of
whether the current prognoses are even reliable.
A healthy dose of skepticism is a good idea, especially when scientists
become all too confident and make themselves out to be oracles. But there
can be a wide gap between their predictions and the end result -- a
fundamental weakness of all computer simulations that present only
incomplete pictures of reality.
In the early years, for example, computer modelers underestimated the
influence of aerosols, especially the sulfur particles that are released
into the atmosphere during the combustion of oil and coal or during volcanic
eruptions. These pollution particles block sunlight and thus cause
significant cooling. The failure to adequately take aerosols into account
explains why earlier models predicted a more drastic rise in temperatures
than those in use today. One major unknown in the predictions depends on how
quickly countries like China will filter out the pollutants from their power
plant emissions -- if the air becomes cleaner it will also heat up more
rapidly.
Other factors that can either weaken or strengthen the greenhouse effect are
still not fully understood today. For example, will the carbon dioxide
trapped in the world's oceans be released as the water heats up, thereby
accelerating global warming? And how much faster do land plants and sea
algae grow in a milder climate? Plant proliferation could bind more carbon
dioxide -- and serve to slow down the greenhouse effect.
But the main problem lies in correctly calculating the effects of clouds.
The tops of clouds act as mirrors in the sky, reflecting sunlight back into
space -- thus cooling the planet. But the bottom sides keep the heat
radiated by the earth from escaping into the atmosphere -- causing
temperatures to rise.
Which of the two effects predominates depends primarily on the altitude at
which clouds form. Simply put, low clouds tend to promote cooling while high
clouds increase warming. So far scientists agree on only one thing, namely
that more clouds will form in a greenhouse climate. They just don't know at
which altitude.
Even the most powerful computer models are still too imprecise to simulate
the details. However, the clouds alone will determine whether temperatures
will increase by one degree more or less than the average predicted by the
models. This is a significant element of uncertainty. "Clouds are still our
biggest headache," concedes Erich Roeckner of the Max Planck Institute for
Meteorology.
Roeckner is a conscientious man and a veteran of climate research, so he, of
all people, should know the limits of simulation programs. Roeckner, who
constantly expects surprises, neatly sums up the problem when he says: "No
model will ever be as complex as nature."
Translated from the German by Christopher
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:PSK0i.560$9i6...@newsfe02.lga...
> Bawana wrote:
>
> > The NEW cry of the loons:
>
> > WELL, NOBODY EVER SAID co2 ALONE CAUSED AGW!!!
>
>
========================
Liar.
The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about
36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon
dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which
causes 3-7%.
Peter Muehlbauer
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:PSK0i.560$9i6...@newsfe02.lga...
> Bawana wrote:
>
> > The NEW cry of the loons:
>
> > WELL, NOBODY EVER SAID co2 ALONE CAUSED AGW!!!
>
>
Nice fake.
Dream on.
Futureman
news:46437b4a$0$31812$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com:
Right Wing's Global Warming Denial Takes New Form, Now Claims Lack of
Water Vapor Caused Ice Ages...
So There wasn't enough water vapor to cause warming required to keep the
ice ages at bay, eh? Cute theory, that water vapor which has always
existed on Earth for billions of years, does the global warming, yet the
ice ages happened anyway. So where does your theory say the water vapor
went so that it wasn't warming while the ice ages began? Into the hollow
center of the Earth where the nazis and the lizard people send flying
saucers out the hole near the North Pole???
Futureman
news:464378e3$0$31847$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com:
> During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300
> A.D., for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and
> sailed to North America. New cities were built all across Europe, and
> the continent's population grew from 30 million to 80 million.
>
>
>
>
> The consequences of the colder temperatures that plunged civilization
> into the so-called Little Ice Age for several centuries after 1300
> were devastating. Summers were rainy, winters cold, and in many places
> temperatures were too low for grain crops to mature. Famines and
> epidemics raged, and average life expectancy dropped by 10 years. In
> Germany, thousands of villages were abandoned and entire stretches of
> land depopulated.
Ahhh, I always wondered what killed off all of the people up north of
Germany in Russia, in Norway, in Sweden, in Finland, in Denmark. The
mystery of the totally depopulated northern realms was a big mystery to
me, but you solved it with this theory of yours.
The other question I have, is how and when did the people migrate back --
I mean, they are there now, obviously, and there's no way they could have
survived if Germany was so devasted far to the south of them?
WE are talking 1300s just shortly before the printing press was invented
(and incidently when the plague of Black Death depopulated lots of areas
in Germany) so there ought to be printed records of these great
population migratings repopulating the northern countries. We have
records of the Vikings (you mentioned those yourself) so them must also
be records of stuff that happened long after the Vikings and not nearly
so long ago.
Do tell about these repopulations. Curious minds want to know.
Bawana
> Bawana wrote:
>
> > The NEW cry of the loons:
>
> > WELL, NOBODY EVER SAID co2 ALONE CAUSED AGW!!!
>
The new cry of the loons - it works.
seon ferguson
president. You're just a fascist who smears anyone who doesn't believe in
the man made global warming myth. Of course global warming exists but the
Earth has had the warming and cooling cycles for thousands of years.
seon ferguson
But your right about global warming.
James
security? ROTFLMAO
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1178824992.9...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Futureman
news:4643adaa$0$9064$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
Explain how anybody can smear a PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOU?
Bill Ward
> Good lord! And we pay for this. Intelligence, global warming and national
> security? ROTFLMAO
It may not be so funny. "National security" means "classified
information" means an actual "end of debate". This NG and its denizens
could easily be on the watch list. Intimidation could easily have teeth.
Freedom of speech is a terrible thing to lose.
BTW, I'm not a conspiracy fan. This one's out in the open.
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
"Futureman" <spam...@frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:Xns992C9067EDE7...@207.115.17.102...
> "Pelosi's criminal Land deal" <Criminal Speaker @ House.gov> wrote in
> news:46437b4a$0$31812$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com:
>
>>
>> "kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
>> news:PSK0i.560$9i6...@newsfe02.lga...
>>> Bawana wrote:
>>>
>>> > The NEW cry of the loons:
>>>
>>> > WELL, NOBODY EVER SAID co2 ALONE CAUSED AGW!!!
>>>
>>> Not for a long time. It is just the largest and primary component.
>>>
>> ========================
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>> The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about
>> 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds);
>> carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and
>> ozone, which causes 3-7%.
>
> Right Wing's Global Warming Denial Takes New Form, Now Claims Lack of
> Water Vapor Caused Ice Ages...
>
> So There wasn't enough water vapor to cause warming required to keep the
> ice ages at bay, eh? Cute theory, that water vapor which has always
> existed on Earth for billions of years,
Yep and Temperature fluxuations existed for billions of years. Thanks for
admittig theglobal warming hoax is all a cult religion scam.
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
>
DER SPIEGEL 19/2007 - May 7, 2007
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
GLOBAL WARMING
Not the End of the World as We Know It
By Olaf Stampf
How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible
droughts headed our way? Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the
latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions
about tomorrow's climate.
Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a
heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate
change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a
paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that
temperatures were rising -- and that it would be a blessing for all.
Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the
release of carbon dioxide -- or carbonic acid as it was then known --
through burning coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise
in temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, "by the influence of the
increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to
enjoy ages with more equable and better climates," potentially making poor
harvests and famine a thing of the past.
Arrhenius was merely expressing a view that was firmly entrenched in the
collective consciousness of the day: warm times are good times; cold times
are bad.
During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300 A.D.,
for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and sailed to North
America. New cities were built all across Europe, and the continent's
population grew from 30 million to 80 million.
The consequences of the colder temperatures that plunged civilization into
the so-called Little Ice Age for several centuries after 1300 were
devastating. Summers were rainy, winters cold, and in many places
temperatures were too low for grain crops to mature. Famines and epidemics
raged, and average life expectancy dropped by 10 years. In Germany,
thousands of villages were abandoned and entire stretches of land
depopulated.
The shock produced by the cold was as deep-seated it was long-lasting. When
Futureman
Thanks for you spelling errors. It renews my respect for GOP agents that
you can pack so many mistakes in two sentences.
Futureman
trying to de-bunk global warming?
-- Rosemary R., via e-mail
A February 2007 report in the British newspaper, The Guardian, fell like
a ton of bricks on efforts by ExxonMobil, the world’s largest and most
profitable oil company, to repair its damaged environmental reputation.
According to the report, the Exxon-financed American Enterprise Institute
(AEI), a conservative Washington, D.C. "think tank," offered scientists
and economists $10,000 each, plus expenses, to write articles
undercutting the dire findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the extent and impacts of human-
caused global warming.
The ties between ExxonMobil, AEI and the highest levels of government go
way back. AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil over
the years, and more than 20 of its staffers have worked as consultants
for the Bush administration. Former Exxon head Lee Raymond is still an
AEI board member.
A month before the Guardian report, the Boston-based Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) released its own report documenting ExxonMobil’s $16
million in donations since 1998 to 43 organizations working to discredit
the science of human-induced climate change. UCS joins a growing chorus
of voices asking the company to turn the corner on global warming and
start embracing a transition away from fossil fuels.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global
warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung
cancer," says Alden Meyer, UCS’s Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest
but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about
global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for
over 40 years."
In September 2006, Britain’s leading scientific academy, the Royal
Society, asked the company to stop supporting groups that "misrepresented
the science of climate change." In response, ExxonMobil said that it
funded groups that research "significant policy issues and promote
informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company" but
that such groups do not speak for the company.
No doubt feeling some heat, ExxonMobil issued a statement recently in
response to an IPCC update: "There is increasing evidence that the
Earth’s climate has warmed on average about 0.6 C in the last century.
Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of
warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period – and
emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these
emissions." The statement also acknowledged that "the risks to society
and ecosystems could prove to be significant…it is prudent now to develop
and implement strategies that address the risks…"
Whether the company is really ready to aggressively develop alternative
energy sources – like its competitors Shell and BP – is yet to be seen.
But environmental leaders share a guarded optimism that the tide is
turning in their favor and that ExxonMobil will back up its words with
action – eventually.
Sources: The Guardian,
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html; UCS Report,
www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html;
ExxonMobil,
www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Citizenship/Corp_citizenship_enviro_policy.a
sp.
ctyguy
You are into global warming aren't you <LOL> Would you suck Al Gore's dick,
Futureman? :-)
Futureman
news:4QQ0i.14002$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
If he had male organs there would have been a civil war in 2000 and five
supremes would have hung by the neck until dead.
Feel free to lick the feces encrusted on seon ferguson, there cityguy. I
hear it has all the nutrition GOP lapdogs need for a glossy coat.
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
Yeah typos are all you got when bitch slapped with temperature fluxuation
facts forthe past 5 billion years
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
>When Did ExxonMobil become a German corporation?
It didnt . you lose again .
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
Futureman
That's all you Libertarian-Republicans have got.
This temperature change is made by man.
Futureman
Futureman
Mass Murderers:
Bush Family Nazis
Four generations of the sociopathic predator George W. Bush family have
been attacking the human race through stealth practices, and contributing
to the mass murder of millions of people. The Bush family has financed,
aided and abetted, and collaborated with the most evil dictators and
tyrants of the 20th century.
The story is too complicated as told by most historians, so this is an
attempt to give a concise overview of the key points of this geneology of
monsters which can be easily grasped by the general public. Of course
this
is a simplification and many links are provided to documentation online.
More complete history is found in books in libraries which are
copyrighted
and therefore not on the internet.
George Herbert Walker -- a supreme predator, operating with top organized
crime lords, devoured companies and people's life works for their private
enrichment without honest work of the few cannibals hiding behind facades
of feigned decency. [1] His allies, collaborators, and sometimes business
partners included John D. Rockefeller (founder of Exxon way back then
under the name of Standard Oil of New Jersey), [2] [3] E.H. Harriman
(owned railroads) [4] [5] [6] and William Rockefeller (financed
Harriman's
railroad through Rockefeller's 'Citibank' predecessor). [7] [8] Walker is
the architypal Wall Street War Profiteer, with office headquarters
address
at 1 Wall Street. [9] [10]
Samuel Prescott Bush -- He was son of a Episcopalian preacher converted
over to the satanic side by George Herbert Walker. Walker and Bush would
each contribute one child to the marriage of Prescott Bush and Dorothy
Walker to produce grandson George Herbert Walker Bush, and great-grandson
George Walker Bush.
Sam started out as low-management for railroads, where he made the
connections needed to move over to Buckeye Steel Castings Company.
Buckeye
harbored railroad strike-breaker sentiment from the president on down.
It's founder was member of the "Cleveland Gatling Gun Battery",[11]
called
a military and social organization, set up in 1878, the year after
nationwide railroad strikes the year before. This guns and railroad
connection returns for World War I, when Buckeye Steel produced gun
barrels and shell casings,[12] and Sam Bush was moved by his
employer-owners puppet-masters into the position of chief of the
Ordnance,
Small Arms and Ammunition Section of the War Industries Board. Bush took
national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with
Remington and other weapons companies.[13]
Preacher's son Bush looks innocent until you are informed that his
patron,
Percy Rockefeller [14] took control of Remington Arms in 1914. [15] Frank
Rockefeller was president of Buckeye Steel for three years from 1905-
1908,
followed by Sam Bush from 1908-1937, throughout the WWI years and the
gunbarrel sales era of Buckeye.[16] In 1915 a new Remington plant was
constructed, operational by 1916 for the first world war, just in time to
get a million rifle order from Russia.[17], [18] 67% of all the
ammunition used in WWI by the US, Britain and Russia was sold by
"Merchants of Death" Remington. [19] [20] [21]
Samuel Prescott Bush was an early president of the National Association
of
Manufacturers (NAM), which is has always been anti-worker,
anti-consumer-rights, and ultra-conservative. Three past presidents of
NAM
helped Robert Welch form the John Birch Society, to uphold the tradition
of Sam Bush -- Bush's Buckeye Steel employees worked seven days per week,
12 hours per day. It's not a far step for son Prescott Bush managing
Auschwitz slave labor worked to death.
Prescott Sheldon Bush -- Best known for serving in the US armed forces in
Arizona during WWI spent defacing Geronimo's grave and grave-robbing the
skull for his germanic secret piracy club "Skull and Bones Society"
headquartered at Yale, University. [22] [23] [24] What he is not famous
for was his financier banker support of Adolph Hitler, the Nazi Storm
Troopers, Auschwitz and death camps. In his quest to get rich Prescott
Bush collaborated with the Nazis before war broke out and through the
year
after Pearl Harbor.
Prescott Bush became Hitler's banker when he became Fritz Thyssen's
banker. [25] [26] The incredible loot Fritz's father made in steel, coal,
and railroads during WWI was hidden in Holland. Shortly afterwards he was
looking to spread some in America and opened a front operation through
E.R. Harriman in New York City. [27] [28], [29] In fact, reports indicate
that the Bush connections to Nazi money continued through 1951. [30]
Prescott Bush managed American-Silesian Company interests in Auscwitz
from
1939-1942 - Auschwitz-Birkenau I.G. Farben
The reason Auschwitz was located where it was is because that is near
where Fritz Thyssen's coal, steel, and railroads were. [31] [32] That
made
it possible for I.G. Farben to synthesize fuel from coal gasification for
the war machine there, which made it also possible to synthesize rubber
there. [33] [34] I.G. Farben also made Zyklon B gas, enough to annihilate
two million people according to the trial testimony of the Auschwitz camp
commander Rudolf Hoess. [35] [36] [37]
Fritz Thyssen published a book titled "I Paid Hitler" in 1941. It
described how Thyssen sponsored the Storm Troopers of Ernst Roehm as
early
as 1933, allowing them to build up to 4,500,000 strong to take over
Germany. But in 1942, even after Pearl Harbor, Prescott Bush and his
father-in-law George Herbert Walker, were administering Thyssen's money
until forced by the US government to halt (temporarily).
The Bush family got rich stealing everything these people had. It stole
their children, stole their homes, stole their belongings, stole their
clothes, stole their hair, stole their freedom, stole their government,
stole their work, stole their health, stole their lives.
The Nazi Bush family got rich
stealing the gold filings
out of murdered victims teeth.
NOTES: (these links were valid February 2005)
1. -- http://www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_link.asp
2. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon-Mobil
3. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
4. -- http://www.nubond.net/railroad/rb_chap11.html
5. -- http://www.beardbooks.com/eh_harriman.html
6. -- http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/27/0927richest_15.html
7. -- http://phatnav.com/wiki/index.php?title=William_Rockefeller
8. -- http://articles.roshd.ir/articles_folder/humanscience/social/40%
20Richest%20Americans%20of%20All%20Time.htm
9. -- http://hnn.us/comments/15155.html
10. -- http://www.tribalmessenger.org/t-bush/bush-family-history-pt1.htm
11. -- http://www.h-net.org/
~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v008/p0009-p0015.pdf
12. -- http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/12/1448237
13. -- http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/54_12-13.pdf
14. -- http://phatnav.com/wiki/index.php?title=Percy_Avery_Rockefeller
15. -- http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_ROCKEFELLER_PERCY_A
16. -- http://www.scripophily.net/bucsteelcasc4.html
17. -- http://www.remingtonsociety.com/gallery/album05
18. -- http://www.remington.com/aboutus/corphistory.htm
19. -- http://www.geocities.com/7897401/merchant/merchant_13.html
20. --
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/merchants_of_death.htm
21. -- http://www.dldewey.com/columns/jul02f.htm
22. -- http://www.secretsofthetomb.com/excerpt.asp
23. --
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml
24. -- http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2523
25. -- http://www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.asp
26. -- http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-ch7.html
27. -- http://www.frankkryder.com/thyssen.htm
28. -- http://www.intl-news.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=54
29. -- http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?
user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link
30. -- http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?
user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
31. -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
32. -- http://www.ce-review.org/99/21/kosc21.html
33. -- http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?
language=EN&tryb=stale&id=228
34. --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/auschbirk.html
35. -- http://www.spectacle.org/695/perp.html
36. --
http://www.fscwv.edu/users/pedwards/evidence_of_evil_by_timothy_w.htm
37. -- http://www3.usenetarchive.org/File.asp?service=4241
38. -- http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/questions/zyklon.shtml
http://www.parascope.com/gallery/galleryitems/holocaust/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/
http://webletter.net/cybrary/fact.fin.diet.html
http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/konzern/geschichte_grfam.html
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush-Hitler.html
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush_Eugenics.html
Bush Family Connections to Genocide and Financing Hitler - A Dynasty of
Mass Murderers:
Bush Family Nazis
Four generations of the sociopathic predator George W. Bush family have
been attacking the human race through stealth practices, and contributing
to the mass murder of millions of people. The Bush family has financed,
aided and abetted, and collaborated with the most evil dictators and
tyrants of the 20th century.
The story is too complicated as told by most historians, so this is an
attempt to give a concise overview of the key points of this geneology of
monsters which can be easily grasped by the general public. Of course
this
is a simplification and many links are provided to documentation online.
More complete history is found in books in libraries which are
copyrighted
and therefore not on the internet.
George Herbert Walker -- a supreme predator, operating with top organized
crime lords, devoured companies and people's life works for their private
enrichment without honest work of the few cannibals hiding behind facades
of feigned decency. [1] His allies, collaborators, and sometimes business
partners included John D. Rockefeller (founder of Exxon way back then
under the name of Standard Oil of New Jersey), [2] [3] E.H. Harriman
(owned railroads) [4] [5] [6] and William Rockefeller (financed
Harriman's
railroad through Rockefeller's 'Citibank' predecessor). [7] [8] Walker is
the architypal Wall Street War Profiteer, with office headquarters
address
at 1 Wall Street. [9] [10]
Samuel Prescott Bush -- He was son of a Episcopalian preacher converted
over to the satanic side by George Herbert Walker. Walker and Bush would
each contribute one child to the marriage of Prescott Bush and Dorothy
Walker to produce grandson George Herbert Walker Bush, and great-grandson
George Walker Bush.
Sam started out as low-management for railroads, where he made the
connections needed to move over to Buckeye Steel Castings Company.
Buckeye
harbored railroad strike-breaker sentiment from the president on down.
It's founder was member of the "Cleveland Gatling Gun Battery",[11]
called
a military and social organization, set up in 1878, the year after
nationwide railroad strikes the year before. This guns and railroad
connection returns for World War I, when Buckeye Steel produced gun
barrels and shell casings,[12] and Sam Bush was moved by his
employer-owners puppet-masters into the position of chief of the
Ordnance,
Small Arms and Ammunition Section of the War Industries Board. Bush took
national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with
Remington and other weapons companies.[13]
Preacher's son Bush looks innocent until you are informed that his
patron,
Percy Rockefeller [14] took control of Remington Arms in 1914. [15] Frank
Rockefeller was president of Buckeye Steel for three years from 1905-
1908,
followed by Sam Bush from 1908-1937, throughout the WWI years and the
gunbarrel sales era of Buckeye.[16] In 1915 a new Remington plant was
constructed, operational by 1916 for the first world war, just in time to
get a million rifle order from Russia.[17], [18] 67% of all the
ammunition used in WWI by the US, Britain and Russia was sold by
"Merchants of Death" Remington. [19] [20] [21]
Samuel Prescott Bush was an early president of the National Association
of
Manufacturers (NAM), which is has always been anti-worker,
anti-consumer-rights, and ultra-conservative. Three past presidents of
NAM
helped Robert Welch form the John Birch Society, to uphold the tradition
of Sam Bush -- Bush's Buckeye Steel employees worked seven days per week,
12 hours per day. It's not a far step for son Prescott Bush managing
Auschwitz slave labor worked to death.
Prescott Sheldon Bush -- Best known for serving in the US armed forces in
Arizona during WWI spent defacing Geronimo's grave and grave-robbing the
skull for his germanic secret piracy club "Skull and Bones Society"
headquartered at Yale, University. [22] [23] [24] What he is not famous
for was his financier banker support of Adolph Hitler, the Nazi Storm
Troopers, Auschwitz and death camps. In his quest to get rich Prescott
Bush collaborated with the Nazis before war broke out and through the
year
after Pearl Harbor.
Prescott Bush became Hitler's banker when he became Fritz Thyssen's
banker. [25] [26] The incredible loot Fritz's father made in steel, coal,
and railroads during WWI was hidden in Holland. Shortly afterwards he was
looking to spread some in America and opened a front operation through
E.R. Harriman in New York City. [27] [28], [29] In fact, reports indicate
that the Bush connections to Nazi money continued through 1951. [30]
Prescott Bush managed American-Silesian Company interests in Auscwitz
from
1939-1942 - Auschwitz-Birkenau I.G. Farben
The reason Auschwitz was located where it was is because that is near
where Fritz Thyssen's coal, steel, and railroads were. [31] [32] That
made
it possible for I.G. Farben to synthesize fuel from coal gasification for
the war machine there, which made it also possible to synthesize rubber
there. [33] [34] I.G. Farben also made Zyklon B gas, enough to annihilate
two million people according to the trial testimony of the Auschwitz camp
commander Rudolf Hoess. [35] [36] [37]
Fritz Thyssen published a book titled "I Paid Hitler" in 1941. It
described how Thyssen sponsored the Storm Troopers of Ernst Roehm as
early
as 1933, allowing them to build up to 4,500,000 strong to take over
Germany. But in 1942, even after Pearl Harbor, Prescott Bush and his
father-in-law George Herbert Walker, were administering Thyssen's money
until forced by the US government to halt (temporarily).
The Bush family got rich stealing everything these people had. It stole
their children, stole their homes, stole their belongings, stole their
clothes, stole their hair, stole their freedom, stole their government,
stole their work, stole their health, stole their lives.
The Nazi Bush family got rich
stealing the gold filings
out of murdered victims teeth.
NOTES: (these links were valid February 2005)
1. -- http://www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_link.asp
2. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon-Mobil
3. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
4. -- http://www.nubond.net/railroad/rb_chap11.html
5. -- http://www.beardbooks.com/eh_harriman.html
6. -- http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/27/0927richest_15.html
7. -- http://phatnav.com/wiki/index.php?title=William_Rockefeller
8. -- http://articles.roshd.ir/articles_folder/humanscience/social/40%
20Richest%20Americans%20of%20All%20Time.htm
9. -- http://hnn.us/comments/15155.html
10. -- http://www.tribalmessenger.org/t-bush/bush-family-history-pt1.htm
11. -- http://www.h-net.org/
~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v008/p0009-p0015.pdf
12. -- http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/12/1448237
13. -- http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/54_12-13.pdf
14. -- http://phatnav.com/wiki/index.php?title=Percy_Avery_Rockefeller
15. -- http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_ROCKEFELLER_PERCY_A
16. -- http://www.scripophily.net/bucsteelcasc4.html
17. -- http://www.remingtonsociety.com/gallery/album05
18. -- http://www.remington.com/aboutus/corphistory.htm
19. -- http://www.geocities.com/7897401/merchant/merchant_13.html
20. --
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/merchants_of_death.htm
21. -- http://www.dldewey.com/columns/jul02f.htm
22. -- http://www.secretsofthetomb.com/excerpt.asp
23. --
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml
24. -- http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2523
25. -- http://www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.asp
26. -- http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-ch7.html
27. -- http://www.frankkryder.com/thyssen.htm
28. -- http://www.intl-news.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=54
29. -- http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?
user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link
30. -- http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?
user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
31. -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
32. -- http://www.ce-review.org/99/21/kosc21.html
33. -- http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?
language=EN&tryb=stale&id=228
34. --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/auschbirk.html
35. -- http://www.spectacle.org/695/perp.html
36. --
http://www.fscwv.edu/users/pedwards/evidence_of_evil_by_timothy_w.htm
37. -- http://www3.usenetarchive.org/File.asp?service=4241
38. -- http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/questions/zyklon.shtml
http://www.parascope.com/gallery/galleryitems/holocaust/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/
http://webletter.net/cybrary/fact.fin.diet.html
http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/konzern/geschichte_grfam.html
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush-Hitler.html
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush_Eugenics.html
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
Yeah and Earthquakes and tornados are now mad eby man too. I see you start
your weekend crack smoking 2 days early this week.
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
full of deadly mercury and make GE record profits compared to those 25 cent
conventonal bulbs.
Concerns raised over mercury in energy-efficient light bulbs
The problem lies with the mercury contained in the fluorescent bulbs. There
are only four or five milligrams in a compact bulb, said Pushchak, but it's
still a neurotoxin and a hazardous material.
When that happens with a compact fluorescent bulb, the mercury vaporizes,
travels in a general northern direction with the atmosphere and is
deposited. It then is absorbed into plant and animal systems, as well as the
soil.
http://news.yahoo.ca/s/capress/health_lightbulb_ban_mercury
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
Speaker @house.gov Pelosi's criminal Land deal
Futureman
"mad eby"??? You don't see anything but the bottom of a cheap plastic gin
bottle near the pool of vomit you are laying your drunken head down in.
Futureman
1. We admit we are powerless over oil and that our Earth is in crisis.
2. We believe that an energy source that is clean and inexpensive could
restore balance to Earth.
3. We have made a decision to turn our power needs over to wind, solar,
hydrogen and other renewable energy sources.
4. We must make a searching and fearless inventory of the damage caused
by our reckless misuse of oil and its by-products.
5. We admit to God, to ourselves and to all other human beings the exact
nature of our wrongs.
6. We are entirely ready to replace oil in our daily lives.
7. We humbly ask God to remove our fear of change.
8. We must make a list of all the environmental abuses we have caused
and be willing to make amends for them all.
9. We must make direct amends for such environmental issues as global
warming whenever possible.
10. We will continue to take inventory and when we find where we have
done wrong, promptly admit it.
11. We will seek, through prayer and meditation, to improve our
stewardship of this God-given earth, praying for knowledge of His will for
our planet and the power to carry it out.
12. Having had an awakening to the damage we have caused, we will share
this message so we can all breathe cleaner air and be delivered from "Big
Oil" and rest assured our children will carry on.
Futureman
COAL-sponsored FRED SINGER committed fraud in 2001 by transporting 40
paid agitators to Germany under the pretense that they were committed
acticists who paid their own way. The 2001 filing with the IRS of form
990 shows that Singer paid $44,000 costs to transport the brownshirt
goosesteppers.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/11649/newsDate/19-Jul-
2001/story.htm
GERMANY: July 19, 2001 BONN, Germany - As anarchists in Genoa prepared to
storm the G8 summit this weekend, a new breed of protester was on the
streets of Bonn on Wednesday - clean-cut conservatives opposing the
climate treaty being discussed there.
While their leftist counterparts in Italy planned protests against
globalisation and US defence and environment policies, a small group of
US Republican students travelled to Germany to defend their government's
stance on global warming.
Around 20 protesters marched outside the security gates of the United
Nations negotiations which will decide the future of the 1997 Kyoto
climate pact, to back US President George W. Bush's decision to dump the
deal.
"This was an opportunity to come and support our country, support our
president and oppose a terrible treaty," said Craig Rucker, Executive
Director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow which organised the
protest.
Rucker, who said he spearheaded a campaign last year against the
environmentalist US presidential candidate Ralph Nader, told Reuters
around 40 like-minded students from around the United States had paid
their own way to travel to Germany to press the rest of the world to
scrap Kyoto.
"Our purpose in this project is to prove that the average college student
isn't a Nader-voting, tree-hugging radical leftist," declared the group's
website which the students had set as the homepage on computers available
to delegates. ...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3983
Bread and Circuses By Lowell Ponte FrontPageMagazine.com | June 20,
2001Frankly, it is time for those on the Right to oppose anti-human
Leftist protesters by organizing protests themselves. Good news: this
summer the Arlington, Virginia-based Leadership Institute will be working
with the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and Collegians
for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) to train college students to travel
to Bonn, Germany, as protesters against the insanity of the Kyoto global
climate treaty, a treaty that could devastate the global economy and
thereby harm the world’s poorest nations most. This will be protesting of
the noblest kind, to serve humanity, individual liberty, and economic
freedom. Because CFACT’s Executive Director is Craig Rucker, you might
think of this coming contest between Right and Wrong protesters as the
Rucker Society versus the Ruckus Society.
According to SEPP 2001 filing 990 form, $44,520 was expended for a global
climate science project in Bonn, West Germany, including travel expenses.
Date given, June 06, 2001, does not correspond to date of student
protest, but may reflect the data of transfer of funds prior to travel.
http://www.sepp.org/ [SANITIZED]
The Week That Was July 14, 2001 brought to you by SEPP
What was once a vague plan has now become reality
OUR STUDENT CLIMATE CRUSADE IS OFF TO BONN And so are we.
Fred Singer can be contacted:
* July 16, 17 and 18 at Hotel Maritim Königswinter +49-2223-7070, fax
+49-2223-707811.
* July 17 at 1730 Private briefing for media and reception at Hotel
Konigshof
* July 18 at 1600 General briefing at Hotel Maritim-Bonn (COP
headquarter hotel)
Here are excerpts from the Washington Times and from CNSNews of June 19
Conservative college students from around the nation will travel to
Washington this summer to train in preparation for protests they will
hold in Bonn, Germany, against the Kyoto climate treaty.
Following the cue of their classmates on the left, who have protested at
other high-profile world events, the students plan to demonstrate
peacefully outside of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in
Bonn, Germany, and distributing literature. They also hope to meet with
members of the U.S. delegation to the July 16-27 conference as well as
European political leaders and media.
"The bottom line is that we think that all voices should be represented
at this conference," said Daniel LaBert, national field director with the
campus leadership program at the Arlington-based Leadership Institute.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php
?recipientID=600
The nonprofit training organization will host and house about 40 students
for a summer workshop on July 11-13 in advance of their trip to Germany.
"We´re just going to give them training on how to get their message
out," Mr. LaBert said.
The trip is being organized by the institute along with the Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and Collegians for a Constructive
Tomorrow (CFACT).
CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker calls the student trip an
educational experience to teach students more about the United Nations
and how the Kyoto treaty works. "We will plan some events that will draw
attention to the fact that there are some young people in America who do
not agree with the Kyoto treaty," he said. "We´re going to give these
students some more ammunition to understand the problems with the
treaty." At a previous U.N. conference at The Hague, college students
showed up to support the agreement, he said, "stating their opinion that
all youth were for the treaty and we need to act now. We felt it did not
encompass the whole viewpoint of youth in the United States and around
the world."
CEI ... As for their reception, the group reported a favorable response
and encountered only minor controversy. "I'm glad we were here, to do our
part to promote the side of logic. Kyoto is an expensive insurance policy
for an empty threat that scientists have not even agreed exists," said
Craig Rucker, director of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the
D.C.-based think tank that, along with the Campus Leadership Program at
the Leadership Institute, coordinated the trip. As for who won the
debate, Rucker opined that the very fact the Left felt compelled to
acknowledge them meant only one outcome was possible. -- National Review
Online
CEI ... Whether or not most Americans are engaged, these students took it
upon themselves to try and impact the process. When asked why they feel
suited to argue with U.N. scientists, Steve Watson of The Leadership
Institute said, “Of course environmentalists will play up problems and
allege catastrophe. That’s their job-they compete with cancer research,
illiteracy, and a thousand other social problems for funding. The larger
the problem they claim, the more their funding and salaries
increase.’’ ...
New Twist To Kyoto Protests: Conservative Students Join Fray By Seth
Lewis CNSNews.com Correspondent June 19, 2001... Some 35 right-leaning
college students from around the country will pass out fliers and stage a
peaceful demonstration against the Kyoto treaty at next month's United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany.
Before appearing at the July 16-17 conference, the students, who will pay
the $1,000-plus tab themselves, will visit Washington for a three-day
training hosted by the Leadership Institute.
"We're going to give them the tools to get the message out that not all
college students on campuses are extremists," said Rich Moha, national
operations director for the institute's campus leadership program.
seon ferguson
See that's the same language a right wing nut would use when you dared
criticize Lord Bush. Instead he uses it when I criticize the man made global
warming religion. You're just as bad as right wing fascists, you know that?
Futureman
Looky that a stinking piece of shit is throwing insults. Who woulda ever
guessed it?
Roger Coppock
them all. I'll just correct one. This post is so full
of basic errors of fact, it is no wonder that the
author's conclusions are wrong also. Garbage in,
garbage out.
On May 10, 12:56 pm, "Pelosi's criminal Land deal" <Criminal Speaker @
House.gov> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, [ . . . ]
The greenhouse effect predates Arrhenius and his
1896 paper by a lifetime. Fourier described in it
1824, for example.
Connolley, Dr. William M., Translator. Fourier 1824: MEMOIRE sur les
temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires.
May 17, 2006. British Antarctic Survey.
<http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/
fourier_1827.html>.
Global warming theory is not new science.
It has a very long history. Look at the subtitle
of this popular history!
Christianson, Gale E. Greenhouse:
The 200-Year Story of Global Warming.
New York: Walker & Company, 1999.
seon ferguson
I'm not going to waste time on an arrogant closed minded jerk like you.
Futureman
$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
Like a puppy you are going to have your nose pressed in your shit
leavings until you are housebroken. Got it? God doggy!
animal05
> Right Wing's Global Warming Denial Takes New Form, Now Attacks Advice
> Of Military Generals
Identifying pseudoscience
A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called
pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the
accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to
meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.[18]
The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific
reasoning.
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
* Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than
precise, and that lack specific measurements.[19]
* Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a
scientific description of the operational means in which a range of
numeric measurements can be obtained).[20]
* Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony,
i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible
additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible
(see: Occam's Razor)[21]
* Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical
jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
* Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific
theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations)
under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[22]
Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
* Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the
event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also:
falsifiability)[23]
* Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has
not been shown to predict[24]
* Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be
true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[25]
* Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and
anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis
generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e.
hypothesis testing).[26]
* Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that
seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to
consider data that conflict with its claims.[27]
* Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests
on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific"
arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics
demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion
regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is
essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic
incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the
claimant.[28]
* Appeals to holism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims,
especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and
mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain
negative findings.[29]
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
* Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called
"science by press conference").[30] Some proponents of theories that
contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their work to
the often ego-bruising process of peer review, sometimes on the grounds
that peer review is inherently biased against claims that contradict
established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions
cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By
remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents
forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[31]
* The science community expects authors to share data necessary to
evaluate a paper. Failure to provide adequate information for other
researchers to reproduce the claimed results is a lack of openness.[32]
* Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in
response to requests for review of data or methodology.[33]
Lack of progress
* Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its
claims.[34] Terrence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that
has changed very little in the past two millennia.[35]
* Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make
mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[36] By
contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they
have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence.[37]
Personalization of issues
* Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality,
suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of
beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their
(confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as
enemies.[38]
* Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific
community to suppress the results.[39]
* Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the
claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]
>
> House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes and House Select
> Committee on Global Warming Chairman Ed Markey recently pushed through
> a bill that would authorize a National Intelligence Assessment to
> study the impact of global warming on national security and fund
> research by the Defense Department into the consequences for U.S.
> military operations posed by climate change.
>
> Global warming deniers have jolted into action. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-
> MI) - who has expressed doubts about the need to urgently address
> global warming - said, "There's no value added by the intelligence
> community" in assessing global warming's security impact. And the
> House Republican Policy Committee put out this farcical statement:
>
> ******** see article for statement *********
>
> The right-wing's attempts to politicize this issue reveal their
> ignorance of the assessments made by national security experts. Last
> month, the Military Advisory Board, a panel of esteemed retired
> military officers including President Bush's former Middle East envoy
> Gen. Anthony Zinni, recommended that "national security consequences
> of climate change should be fully integrated into national security
> and national defense strategies."
>
> In its first hearing, the House Select Committee on Global Warming
> heard testimony from Ret. Gen. Gordon Sullivan, chairman of the
> Military Advisory Board, who said:
>
> Speaking for the members of the Military Advisory Board, I am
> confident in stating we as individuals and collectively support your
> legislative initiative to authorize a National Intelligence Estimate
> on the National Security Implications of Climate Change.
>
> Earlier this year, the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War
> College assessed:
>
> The significance of the climate change challenge and its requirement
> for better cooperation across governments and agencies might be best
> addressed in the United States by a new National Security Act of 2010.
>
> In 2003, the Pentagon issued a report stating the following:
>
> Because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt
> climate change...should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
> national security concern.
>
> The national security consequences of climate change are real and
> predictable. Leading environmental scientists have already said that
> climate change will bring about reduced access to fresh water,
> impaired food production, more diseases, land loss and displacement of
> major populations. This is most likely to affect the world's poorest
> regions, thus providing an incubator for extremist ideologies and
> terrorism and fights over scarce resources.
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/09/global-warming-national-security/
>
Pelosi's 35% Approval rating
> 12 steps to get Off Oil
>
> welfare office for their food stamps, instead of driving their Escalade's
> with spinner gold plated rims.
Steve
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html>
wrote:
Force all the limousine liberal global warmers to give up their 15,000
sq foot mansions, SUVs and make them live in a double-wide and drive
hybrid econoboxes exclusively... Forbid them to charter private air
transportation and make them ride greyhound...
Pelosi's 35% Approval rating
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only
one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few
listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology
and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the
reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human
history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D,
(Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32
years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For
some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is
flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and
would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have
studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the
cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no
clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon
Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of
science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating
unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific
justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7
billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on
propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the
same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution
targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we
don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is
why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever
cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President
of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that
something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was
the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global
Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and
adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your
stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the
survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in
1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered
as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not
denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the
nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally
continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural
variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is
nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London,
Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles.
Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global
cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific
fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global
Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before
retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now
indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and
makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life
during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to
speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where
free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged,
academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous,
from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying,
especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are
the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes
progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments
that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki
of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the
fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club
or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a
civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They
usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they
also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become.
Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several
well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the
scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State
of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed
science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric
physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research
in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member
of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University
of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against
the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody
seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method
which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions
and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The
theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas
and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since
humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably
rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively
became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the
research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the
prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they
are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with
these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the
holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is
effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have
no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate
and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on
climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and
creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions
about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty
people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find
out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in
the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes,
but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York
University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently
misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue
the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental
concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific
evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the
extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he
posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the
excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question
to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important
question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
(www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at
let...@canadafreepress.com
milt....@gmail.com
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 10:26:42 -0400, "Pelosi's 35% Approval rating"
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:Xns992CCE7F09AE...@207.115.33.102...
> >> 12 steps to get Off Oil
>
> >> 1. Mkae every hypocrit liberal maggot use a foot scooter to go to the
> >> welfare office for their food stamps, instead of driving their Escalade's
> >> with spinner gold plated rims.
>
> Force all the limousine liberal global warmers to give up their 15,000
> sq foot mansions, SUVs and make them live in a double-wide and drive
> hybrid econoboxes exclusively... Forbid them to charter private air
> transportation and make them ride greyhound...
Of course, if they heat their 15,000 sf mansions using solar and wind
power, drive electric cars and fly First Class passenger airlines
(most of them already do the last one), then you have no point. Gore
is working to do all but the last one, btw, which the Secret Service
would pretty much forbid.
Of course, we all know that those damn limousine liberals are the
difference. Jesus... is there no end to your stupidity?
Michael Ejercito
> Right Wing's Global Warming Denial Takes New Form, Now Attacks Advice
> Of Military Generals
>
> Committee on Global Warming Chairman Ed Markey recently pushed through
> a bill that would authorize a National Intelligence Assessment to
> study the impact of global warming on national security and fund
> research by the Defense Department into the consequences for U.S.
> military operations posed by climate change.
such a project when global warming was happening in 2700 B.C.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> Pelosi's criminal Land deal wrote
>
> >>> The NEW cry of the loons:
> >>> WELL, NOBODY EVER SAID co2 ALONE CAUSED AGW!!!
> >> Not for a long time. It is just the largest and primary component.
> > 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon
> > dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which
> > causes 3-7%.
>
> radiative forcing component when man is added to the natural mix.
>
So then what proportion of GW is AGW?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> There's way way too many errors here to correct
> them all. I'll just correct one. This post is so full
> of basic errors of fact, it is no wonder that the
> author's conclusions are wrong also. Garbage in,
> garbage out.
>
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, [ . . . ]
>
> The greenhouse effect predates Arrhenius and his
> 1896 paper by a lifetime. Fourier described in it
> 1824, for example.
the 1980's, an idea that should be discounted by anyone with any
rudimentary knowledge of climate history.
Michael
Pelosi's 35% Approval rating
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178907022.4...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 11, 10:43 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 May 2007 10:26:42 -0400, "Pelosi's 35% Approval rating"
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Futureman" <spamt...@frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
>> >news:Xns992CCE7F09AE...@207.115.33.102...
>> >> 12 steps to get Off Oil
>>
>> >> 1. Mkae every hypocrit liberal maggot use a foot scooter to go to
>> >> the
>> >> welfare office for their food stamps, instead of driving their
>> >> Escalade's
>> >> with spinner gold plated rims.
>>
>> Force all the limousine liberal global warmers to give up their 15,000
>> sq foot mansions, SUVs and make them live in a double-wide and drive
>> hybrid econoboxes exclusively... Forbid them to charter private air
>> transportation and make them ride greyhound...
>
> Of course, if they heat their 15,000 sf mansions using solar and wind
> power, drive electric cars and fly First Class passenger airlines
> (most of them already do the last one), then you have no point. Gore
> is working to do all but the last one,
Yeah, thast why his Electric bill is $ 30,000 a year from Tennesee valley
power , because he uses so much wind and solar power.
milt....@gmail.com
www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html> wrote:
> <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You don't even get that the amount is irrelevant, right?
My check for electric power goes to the local utility, but the
***power*** is purchased through a green cooperative. IOW, none of my
power is generated by coal or oil. As such, i pay about 20% more for
electricity every month, because I prefer to not buy from polluting
sources.
Gore pays a HIGHER PRICE to buy his electricity from green sources.
His CHECK goes to the TVA, because that's who delivers his
electricity, but the actual power generation comes from green
companies.
And he's having a solar array installed now, and that will supply the
bulk of his power relatively soon.
somebody
infrastructure and employs millions of people. So if the oil industry
becomes obsolete, stock markets all over the world will crash and bring
in Great Depression II.
Crooked Corporations, Political Crooks
> Oil industry has invested hundreds of billions of dollars on its
> infrastructure and employs millions of people. So if the oil industry
> becomes obsolete, stock markets all over the world will crash and bring
> in Great Depression II.
Bring it on!
Phlip
>> welfare office for their food stamps, instead of driving their Escalade's
>> with spinner gold plated rims.
Uh, it seems to me that ending _corporate_ welfare, including the doctrine
of "you go ahead and pollute it; the taxpayers will help clean it up", would
be a little more direct and expeditious than simply wallowing in your own
self-pity over your work schedule and possessions...
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
Bawana
tard.
Get MORON tattooed on your forehead, while you're at it.
> because I prefer to not buy from polluting sources.
But, you really have no idea where your power comes from,
do you tard?
> Gore pays a HIGHER PRICE to buy his electricity from green sources.
> His CHECK goes to the TVA, because that's who delivers his
> electricity, but the actual power generation comes from green
> companies.
That's what they say, tard
> And he's having a solar array installed now, and that will supply the
> bulk of his power relatively soon.
Solar won't do that, tard.
You tards believe anything, don't you?
Keeeeerist, you're some stupid MFers.
Bawana
> >> 1. Mkae every hypocrit liberal maggot use a foot scooter to go to the
> >> welfare office for their food stamps, instead of driving their Escalade's
> >> with spinner gold plated rims.
>
Put the glass dick down, tardboy.
Democrat Congress Collapsing approval Ratings
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178920221.6...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
The only thing green is the $ 30,000 a year in cash Gore the Glutton is
losing by wasting so much energy out of his Big Tobacco farmhouse that
causes cancer.
milt....@gmail.com
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html>
You really don't get it, do you? No one cares if he uses electricity
that isn't produced by burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the
atmosphere. The moron who pays $100 for power that's produced by coal
or oil is doing more damage than Gore. In fact, by using so much green
power, he's actually reducing the price for everyone else, and
encouraging more green power production.
milt....@gmail.com
Yeah, actually, I do. Just about every state has electrical choice
now, and you can choose which supplier you buy from.
>
> > Gore pays a HIGHER PRICE to buy his electricity from green sources.
> > His CHECK goes to the TVA, because that's who delivers his
> > electricity, but the actual power generation comes from green
> > companies.
>
> That's what they say, tard
Yep.
>
> > And he's having a solar array installed now, and that will supply the
> > bulk of his power relatively soon.
>
> Solar won't do that, tard.
Um, yeah it will. A friend of mine has been using solar in three
townhouses for 20 years now, and his average bill in the winter is
still less than $20 a month, even though the nighttime temps in the
winter are usually between -20and -40. During the summer, he actually
gets about $30 a month per home back from the power company, for the
excess power he sells to the grid.
> You tards believe anything, don't you?
> Keeeeerist, you're some stupid MFers.
Yawn...better start paying attention... the teacher might ask you guys
to start fingerpainting soon...
Phlip
> losing by wasting so much energy out of his Big Tobacco farmhouse that
> causes cancer.
You guys do such a poor job of channeling Rush. Let professionals handle the
job, okay?
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
Democrat Congress Collapsing approval Ratings
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178938303.6...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Actually Gore is depriving 30 other families from that Green power he is
wating like a fat gluttonous pig that he is .
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home,
which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use
compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they
purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint
down to zero."
These efforts did little to impress Johnson. "I appreciate the solar
panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a
heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching
out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."
The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in
2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414
kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in
2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average
of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and
$640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages
out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512
in 2005.
Bonzo Lies, is INSANE
You can search every sentence but not one science fact in this opinion
piece by known career criminal liar Tim Ball.
=========================================
In addition more facts surfaced about sleazy Tom Harris:
In 2002 he was employed by APCO Worldwide, a known organized crime fraud
arranger with a stable of "whitecoats" to give science-flavored
deceptions uncovered by the Tobacco Racketeer trials of the 1990s. APCO
created TASSC, a pure-fraud operation which had many of the same science-
liars as an event they hosted in 2002 in Canada. Tom Harris was listed as
contact for this event. APCO also organized the fraud operation known as
"Friends of Science" at the same time.
http://www.climatesearch.com/newsDetail.cfm?nwsId=54
Tom Harris, Associate <===== Tom Harris, Organized Crime Fraudster
APCO Worldwide (Canada) <==== Created TASSC Organized Crime Fraud
Ring
phone 613/288-0382
fax 613/565-1937
email tcha...@apcoworldwide.com
web http://www.apcoworldwide.com
Climate Specialists speaking at the news conference:
1 - Dr. Tim Patterson
2 - Dr. Fred Singer <==== TASSC Corrupt Scientist
3 - Dr. Tim Ball <==== Known Associate of Organized Crime Figures.
4 - Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar
5 - Dr. Pat Michaels <==== TASSC Corrupt Scientist
6 - Professor Fred Michel
Energy Engineering Specialists:
1 - Dr. J. Terry Rogers
2 - Dr. Howard C. Hayden
Not attending news conference but available for phone & email
interviews:
Dr. Roger Pocklington
Dr. Sallie Baliunas
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. John Christy
Dr. Chris Essex
Dr. Roger Peilke
Dr. William M. Gray <==== Known Associate of Organized Crime Figures.
Dr. Fred Seitz <==== TASSC Corrupt Scientist
Dr. George Taylor
Dr. Sherwood Idso
Dr. David Wojick, P.E.
Art Robinson of OISM
Dr. Herb I. H. Saravanamuttoo
Dr. Robert Balling
Dr. Ross McKitrick
Dr. Philip Stott
"Pelosi's 35% Approval rating"
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html> wrote
in news:4644866a$0$31838$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com:
milt....@gmail.com
Really? then perhaps you could name the 30 families doing without
power because he's taking too much...
You don't even realize how absurd that statement is do you?
Democrat Congress Collapsing approval Ratings
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179013761....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
There is only a finite ammount of " green power". If Al gore Hogs 30 times
the average users consumption, htne 30 other people have to use dirty coal
fired power.
You just got your ass kicked again .
Peter B. Perlso Lies, is INSANE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html> wrote
> There is only a finite ammount of " green power". If Al gore Hogs 30
> times the average users consumption, htne 30 other people have to use
> dirty coal fired power.
> You just got your ass kicked again .
Haven't you heard the GOOD NEWS? There's an infinite amount of green power.
Albert Einstein proved it: e=mc^2. The whole universe is made of energy.
Democrat Congress Collapsing approval Ratings
"Peter B. Perlso Lies, is INSANE" <I'll.be...@Terminator.org> wrote in
message news:Xns992EB8512F6B2P...@207.115.33.102...
YEah but Democrats Like Ted Kennedy wont allow it in their hood.
Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch
Nation's First Offshore Wind Power Project Threatens to Block Kennedy's View
and the Senator Isn't Happy
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2995334
Bawana
Anothe bamboozled chump.
> > > Gore pays a HIGHER PRICE to buy his electricity from green sources.
> > > His CHECK goes to the TVA, because that's who delivers his
> > > electricity, but the actual power generation comes from green
> > > companies.
>
> > That's what they say, tard
>
> Yep.
And you believe it...
> > > And he's having a solar array installed now, and that will supply the
> > > bulk of his power relatively soon.
>
> > Solar won't do that, tard.
>
> Um, yeah it will. A friend of mine has been using solar in three
> townhouses for 20 years now,
A friend of yours - now that's a source!!!
> and his average bill in the winter is
> still less than $20 a month, even though the nighttime temps in the
> winter are usually between -20and -40. During the summer, he actually
> gets about $30 a month per home back from the power company, for the
> excess power he sells to the grid.
Your 'friend' is pulling you leg big-time, tardboy.
Bawana
> > The only thing green is the $ 30,000 a year in cash Gore the Glutton is
> > losing by wasting so much energy out of his Big Tobacco farmhouse that
> > causes cancer.
>
> You guys do such a poor job of channeling Rush.
And you're another Snott Dudds sockpuppet, tardboy.