HOW TO DISMISS GLOBAL WARMING IN 30 SECONDS
Roger Coppock
in a long time. -.-. --.- Roger
=-=-=-=-=
How to dismiss global warming in 30 seconds
By Daniel Gibson-Reinemer
Rocky Mountain Collegian
(Colorado State U.)
Global warming skeptics can thank Al Gore.
It's tough to wade through the science of climate change, ask critical
questions and look for compelling evidence.
It's a lot easier to attack the idea of changes in the global climate
due to human impacts by attacking Mr. Gore.
In science, evidence comes from observation, experimentation and
quantitative analysis of results. But why bother with such trouble
when you can just sling mud?
An effective way to get around actually providing evidence is to find
a person some Americans already view unfavorably and link their
persona with the issue you oppose.
Here's how to sidestep any investigation into a complex issue
occupying some of the brightest minds in the world, do minimal fact-
finding and come out sounding informed enough to make it on cable
news:
1) Cite one inconsistency or somewhat misleading portion of the film
''An Inconvenient Truth.''
2) Find a quote from one expert who at least partially disagrees with
something Mr. Gore said in the film.
3) Bring up Mr. Gore's electric bill.
4) Throw in an ad hominem about Mr. Gore's weight, beard or any
personal aspect you wish to mock (call it the ''Coulter closer'' --
rebutting an argument by insulting the person).
Of course, the problem with making this argument is it doesn't get to
the heart of the issue; in short, they're missing the hurricane for
the hot air.
Most likely, history will prove that Mr. Gore is not completely
correct in all of his assertions or predictions regarding the global
climate. This is not a reflection of his ability or bias, but rather a
testament to the uncertainty inherent in a subject like climate
change.
Indeed, as the New York Times reported last week, several scientists
disagree with some segments in ''An Inconvenient Truth.'' Importantly,
though, the scientists do not find fault with the major themes of the
documentary.
On the frontiers of cutting-edge science, you will always find a
certain amount of disagreement as the facts emerge.
But while the details and a few implications are still debated, the
scientific consensus is not.
In February, the Board of Directors of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science released a statement regarding climate
change, which began with an unambiguous declaration -- ''The
scientific evidence is clear: Global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.''
So while the debate about the amount of increase in sea levels over
the next hundred years or the exact role of increasingly warm sea
currents on hurricane severity remains academic, the clarity of the
fundamental message should not be confused with that of the details.
Whether or not you like Mr. Gore or his approach to global warming is
irrelevant to the scientific consensus that has emerged on the
subject. Likewise, some of Mr. Gore's assertions in ''An Inconvenient
Truth'' may be subject to debate without altering the essential facts
regarding climate change.
Many of the most important issues, like global warming or the war in
Iraq, require a search for truth, which demands skill, patience and
thoughtful deliberation. Often, the reality of a complex situation is
such that nobody has a completely true answer.
In such cases, we must acknowledge the uncertainty involv ed without
losing sight of the big picture. If the real search for truth becomes
inconvenient, we all suffer.
The source:
http://www.da.wvu.edu/XMLParser/printstory.phtml?id=27116
W. D. Allen
But your hero, Al Gore, said global warming is an already settled issue! So
must all those "brightest minds" be doing - arguing with conscientious
skeptics? Now there's a complex issue not easily solved!
WDA
end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1658 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
Bill Ward
> "...a complex issue occupying some of the brightest minds in the
> world...."
>
> But your hero, Al Gore, said global warming is an already settled issue!
> So must all those "brightest minds" be doing - arguing with conscientious
> skeptics? Now there's a complex issue not easily solved!
>
> WDA
>
It's a prophecy - one doesn't argue with the prophet or his priests.
Invasion of the Crackpots
The Exxon Religion is that Old-Time Satanic Religion
The EXXON religion has Exxon born of a virgin birth, no more of that
old satanic heresy that Rockefeller's dad was a sociopath that brought
home his mistress to live under the family roof or peddled fake cancer
cures or a bigamist who actually went and married another woman under
a faked name.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/chernow-titan.html
"Before long, Big Bill roughly disabused Eliza of any high-flown
romantic notions she might have had about matrimony. Far from
renouncing his girlfriend, Nancy Brown, he brought her into the
cramped house as a "housekeeper" and began having children,
alternately, by wife and mistress. In 1838, Eliza gave birth to their
first child, Lucy, followed a few months later by Nancy's first
illegitimate daughter, Clorinda. On the night of July 8, 1839, Bill
and Eliza again summoned the midwife, this time to deliver a boy, who
came into the world in a bare front bedroom measuring eight by ten
feet. This child, born during Martin Van Buren's presidency and
destined to become the country's foremost capitalist, would survive
into the second term of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Like many
other future magnates--Andrew Carnegie (born in 1835), Jay Gould
(1836), and J. Pierpont Morgan (1837)--he was born in the late 1830s
and would therefore come to maturity on the eve of the post-Civil War
industrial boom. Several months after John's birth, Nancy Brown gave
birth to a second daughter, Cornelia, which meant that Bill, lord of
his own harem, managed to sire four children under one roof in just
two years. Thus, the fiercely moralistic John Davison Rockefeller
(appropriately named after Eliza's sober father) was sandwiched
tightly between two illegitimate sisters, born into a situation
steeped in sin."
http://www.answers.com/topic/john-d-rockefeller
Rockefeller ... His father was a traveling salesman of dubious
products, such as "cancer cures." He was also a philanderer and a
bigamist.
----------------
The EXXON religion is the purity of the nobel corporation who only
toils to delive beneficial products, not the satanic heresy of the
polluting corporation that made kerosine before cars were invented so
it had to dump the poisonous gasoline unwanted byproduct in streams
and rivers.
----------------
The EXXON religion is the good citizen corporation, not the satanic
heresy about Rockefeller going to war with Tom Scott of Penn RR that
led to 2,000 people killed in uprisings that burned 2,000 railcars and
engines and many rail stations. The Exxon religion is the good
corporation, not that satanic heresy of the illegal trust that took a
president Roosevelt and a supreme court 11 years to "break up".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike
"Pittsburgh, PA became the site of the worst violence. Thomas
Alexander Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad, often considered one of
the first robber barons, suggested that the strikers should be given
"a rifle diet for a few days and see how they like that kind of
bread."[3]
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/wv/roundhouse.pdf
One railroad, the Pennsylvania, suffered the greatest losses of all
the railroads, with its heaviest losses at Pittsburgh. Fortunately for
the company, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court held the company not
liable for freight stolen or destroyed at Pittsburgh. What had
happened to the Pennsylvania Railroad caused its president, Tom Scott,
to sell his empire to John D. Rockefeller in October 1877.
----------------
http://mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html
A People's History of the United States
... The Standard Oil Trust was dissolved under court order in 1911
creating many smaller regional companies, including Standard Oil of
New Jersey (Exxon), Standard Oil of New York (Mobil), Standard Oil of
California (Chevron), Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio), Standard Oil of
Indiana (Amoco), Continental Oil (Conoco), and Atlantic Oil (ARCO). By
1941 Standard Oil of New Jersey was the largest oil company in the
world, controlling 84 percent of the U.S. petroleum market. Its bank
was Chase and its owners were the Rockefellers. ...
... After the Rockefellers, the next largest stockholder in Standard
Oil was I.G. Farben, the giant German chemical company. This
investment was part of a pattern of reciprocal investments between the
U.S. and Germany during the Nazi years. During the Great Depression,
Germany was viewed as a hot area in which to invest.
A brief aside is required here to explain what type of company I.G.
Farben actually was. At the time, it was the world's largest chemical
company and through the talents of its scientists and engineers, it
secured the vital self-sufficiency that was to enable Germany to
maneuver in the world of power politics. From its laboratories and
factories flowed the strategic raw materials that Germany's own
territory could not supply, the synthetics of oil, gasoline, rubber,
nitrates, and fibers. In addition, I.G. produced vaccines and drugs
such as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa
drugs, as well as poison gases and rocket fuels. The depth of I.G.
Farben's connection to Nazi policy was finally realized at Auschwitz,
the extermination center where four million people were destroyed in
accordance with Hitler's "Final Solution of the Jewish Question".
Drawn by the seemingly limitless supply of death camp labor, Farben
built I.G. Auschwitz, a huge industrial complex designed to produce
synthetic rubber and oil. This installation used as much electricity
as the entire city of Berlin, and more than 25,000 camp inmates died
during its construction. I.G. Farben eventually built its own
concentration camp, known as Monowitz, which was closer to the site of
the complex than Auschwitz was, in order to eliminate the need to
march prisoners several miles to and from the plant every day.
This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well
as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors.
I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis
simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In
fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force
would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. The planes
that made up the Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gasoline in order to
fly. At the time, only Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors had
the ability to produce this vital substance. In 1938, Walter C.
Teagle, then president of Standard Oil, helped Hermann Schmitz of I.G.
Farben to acquire 500 tons of tetraethyl lead from Ethyl, a British
Standard subsidiary. A year later, Schmitz returned to London and
obtained an additional 15 million dollars worth of tetraethyl lead
which was to be turned into aviation gasoline back in Germany.
After the war began in Europe, the English became angry about U.S.
shipments of strategic materials to Nazi Germany. Standard Oil
immediately changed the registration of their entire fleet to
Panamanian to avoid British search or seizure. These ships continued
to carry oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where they refueled
and siphoned oil to German tankers for shipment to Hamburg.
This deception was exposed on March 31, 1941 when the U.S. State
Department issued a detailed report on refueling stations in Mexico
and Central and South America that were suspected of furnishing oil to
Italian and German merchant vessels. The report listed Standard Oil of
New Jersey and Standard Oil of California among those fueling enemy
ships, but there is no record of any action being taken as a result of
this discovery. Similar deals between Standard Oil and the Japanese
government for the purchase of tetraethyl lead have also been
uncovered, but no direct action was ever taken against Standard Oil
for its dealings with America's enemies. A brief side note, however,
is that on April 17, l945 the Chase National Bank was placed on trial
in federal court on charges of having violated the Trading With the
Enemy Act by converting German marks into U.S. dollars. Because many
countries refused to accept German currency during the war, the Nazis
used foreign banks like Chase National to change the currency into
money that would be accepted, and thus allowed them to purchase much
need materials to prolong the war. The closer one looks, the more ties
one finds between American business and Nazi Germany, many of which
remained strong well into and beyond the war. ...
http://www.us-highways.com/sohist.htm
Your Scientist
news:46018447$0$16751$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> "...a complex issue occupying some of the brightest minds
> in the world...."
>
> But your hero, Al Gore, said global warming is an already
> settled issue! So must all those "brightest minds" be doing
> - arguing with conscientious skeptics? Now there's a
> complex issue not easily solved!
Algore is a powerful priest in the Global Warming faith. As a
religious leader he cannot embrace doubt. Those who accept
Global Warming accept it by faith and we should respect their
religious freedom!
Check out our new website and online community at
http://www.globalcooling.name Remember WE WERE HERE FIRST!
Learn how YOU can do your part to save our planet!
Five minutes a day can make a global difference if we all chip
in!
Your Scientist
--
http://www.globalcooling.name
Saving the world one therm at a time.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
geoff
raise money.
After the Scopes trial, evolution was no longer taught in schools until
sputnik came along and the US government realized that the USA is seriously
lacking in science education.
However, politics + science = not worth any comment.
-g
Lloyd
> "...a complex issue occupying some of the brightest minds in the world...."
>
> But your hero, Al Gore, said global warming is an already settled issue!
That it's occurring IS a settled issue.
John Black
rcop...@adnc.com says...
> 1) Cite one inconsistency or somewhat misleading portion of the film
> ''An Inconvenient Truth.''
There is a big difference between having "one inconsistency" in a film
and the film being compeltely full of shit from start to finish. It is
being heralded as the definitive documentary on global warming and it is
either wrong or very misleading from start to finish.
John Black
Your Scientist
news:6amMh.8284$GV4...@fe05.news.easynews.com:
> Politicized science does nothing except make politicians
> popular and/or raise money.
I agree with my earth brother, but this is more politics mixed
with faith based religion is it not?
The mixing of Global Warming faith and politics is the mixing of
religion and government. It has very little to do with real
science. Real science fears global cooling.
Your Scientist
--
http://www.globalcooling.name
Saving the world one therm at a time.
Take our community poll, what are you willing to do?
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
hanson
<Crook...@ScienceCop.info> and wisely wrote NOTHING in his
news:1174590619.2...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> .
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha... EXCELLENT, Lion Kuntz. You have learned.
Kudos to you, Lion Kuntz!
Take care, fare well, and adios for now, Lion.
Thanks for all the laughs.... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Loogie
> The mixing of Global Warming faith and politics is the mixing of
> religion and government.
much like the Evangelical Christians being brainwashed/hoodwinked by the
Republican Party?
> It has very little to do with real
> science. Real science fears global cooling.
>
> Your Scientist
You are not a Scientist. If you are you should be stripped of all
credentials as you are incompetent.
L
Your Scientist
news:etv6cr$qea$2...@news.datemas.de:
> You are not a Scientist. If you are you should be stripped
> of all credentials as you are incompetent.
Are you one of the Global Warming priests?
Your Scientist
--
Visit http://www.globalcooling.name
Saving the world one therm at a time.
--
Vendicar Decarian
"John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote
> There is a big difference between having "one inconsistency" in a film
> and the film being compeltely full of shit from start to finish. It is
> being heralded as the definitive documentary on global warming and it is
> either wrong or very misleading from start to finish.
The simple fact of the matter is that Gore's documentary gets all of the
science right. He is clear, precise, and exactly on point, every time,
through the entire documentary.
The film is a paragon of scientific accuracy in it's conveyance of science
to the General Public.
Vendicar Decarian
"Your Scientist" <NOS...@globalcooling.name> wrote
> The mixing of Global Warming faith and politics is the mixing of
> religion and government. It has very little to do with real
> science. Real science fears global cooling.
Science fears nothing. Science is a self correcting process of developing
a model of the world that predicts how the world operates.
Science is a method of developing a way to predict the future.
Vendicar Decarian
"Your Scientist" <NOS...@globalcooling.name> wrote
> Algore is a powerful priest in the Global Warming faith. As a
> religious leader he cannot embrace doubt. Those who accept
> Global Warming accept it by faith and we should respect their
> religious freedom!
Monday, March 19, 2007
Poll: Americans See a Climate Problem
Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006 Article ToolsPrintEmailReprints A large majority of
Americans - 85% - say global warming is probably happening, according to a
new
TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll. An even larger percentage
(88%)
think global warming threatens future generations. More than half (60%) say
it
threatens them a great deal; 38% feel that global warming is already a
serious
problem, and 47% feel that it will be in the future.
Just over half of Americans (52%) say weather patterns in the county where
they
live have grown more unstable in the last three years and half (50%) feel
that
average temperatures have risen in their county. A large majority (70%)
think
weather patterns globally have become more unstable in the last three years
and
56% feel average temperatures around the world have risen.
Almost half (49%) say the issue of global warming is "extremely important"
or
"very important" to them personally, up from 31% in 1998. When asked about
the
causes of rise in the world?s temperatures, 31% feel it is caused by the
things
people do, 19% feel it is due mostly to natural causes, and 49% feel it is a
combination of the two. Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the
government
should do more to address global warming, according to the poll; however,
64%
think scientists disagree with one another about global warming.
Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say President George W. Bush?s policies did
little
or nothing to help the environment in the past year. More than half (54%)
feel
American businesses did little or nothing to help. Three-quarters want to
see
Bush and others - Congress, American businesses and the American public -
take
action to help the environment in the year ahead. About one-third (35%) of
Americans say that in the past year they have personally given a lot of
thought
to the impact they were having on the environment.
Six in ten Americans (62%) think much can be done to curb global warming and
52%
favor government mandates. A majority (61%) say they would support a
government
mandate on lowering power plant emissions, and 87% support tax breaks to
develop
water, wind and solar power. But 81% oppose higher taxes on electricity, 68%
oppose higher gasoline taxes and 56% oppose giving companies tax breaks to
build
nuclear power plants.
The partisan gap on global warming seems to be shifting, according to the
poll.
In 1998, 31% of Republicans and independents alike were sure that global
warming
was happening, compared with 39% among Democrats. Today, 46% of Democrats
and
45% of independents are certain, but only 26% of Republicans feel that way,
according to the poll.
The TIME/ABC News/Stanford University poll was conducted by telephone March
9-14, 2006 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The results have
a
three-point error margin.
Vendicar Decarian
Vendicar Decarian
"W. D. Allen" <ball...@roadrunner.com> wrote
> But your hero, Al Gore, said global warming is an already settled issue!
Once again Gore is absolutely correct.
"W. D. Allen" <ball...@roadrunner.com> wrote
> So must all those "brightest minds" be doing - arguing with conscientious
> skeptics?
I agree with W.D. Allen that putting a bullet into the brain of the
skeptics would be much more efficient.
It's Sparky
It's Sparky
Pastor Bob
that people will stop giving money to the church and spend it on
environmentalist concerns instead. That means there will be no money to teach
our children the virtues of sexual abstinence and to fight gay marriage. Moral
decay and the two greatest threats that mankind has ever faced.
Baldin Lee Pramer
> Algore
Dittos, Rush!! Mega dittos!!!!!!
Baldin Lee Pramer
Sub
could make a fast buck on some Hollywood movie. That's why the conservative
media didn't know about it until late 2006.
Joe Fischer
Know about what?
Joe Fischer
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote in message
> Know about what?
A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society -
Englands
foremost Science Establishment
Misleading arguments 4.
-----------------------
The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of greenhouse
gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction
of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to
the climate.
Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing
than increases in greenhouse gases.
---
About half of the solar energy entering the top of the Earth's atmosphere
eventually reaches the surface where it is absorbed. Much of the solar
energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface and then released as infra-red
radiation, some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water
vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. The greenhouse gases act like a blanket
over the surface of the Earth, keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees
warmer than it otherwise would be, which is a phenomenon known as 'the
greenhouse effect'.
Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
enhance the greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming. It
has been long established that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infra-red
radiation. The IPCC 2001 report pointed out that carbon dioxide is "the
dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas", and is responsible for more than
half the warming due to changes in atmospheric concentrations.
Based on direct analysis of gases found trapped in cores of polar ice, it is
known that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for several
thousands of years before 1750 was about 280 parts per million. Between 1750
and 2000, during which industrialisation has occurred, the concentration
rose by about 31% to 368 parts per million. The IPCC report noted that the
current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been
exceeded during the past 420,000 years and that "the rate of increase over
the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years".
It has been claimed that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide is actually a consequence of climate change, rather than a cause.
The IPCC report pointed out that chemical analyses of the carbon dioxide
show that the increase in the atmosphere, and an
accompanying decrease in oxygen concentrations, are primarily due to the
burning of fossil
fuels and deforestation.
Although some carbon dioxide taken up and released by oceans or land, it
stressed that the average rate of increase in concentrations in the
atmosphere since 1980 has been about 0.4% per year and that this is due to
emissions. It stated "Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are due
to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to
land-use change, especially deforestation".
A number of other factors are known to influence climate and cause change,
particularly volcanic eruptions, variations in the energy from the sun and
particles released into the
atmosphere from both natural sources and human activities. Particles in the
atmosphere reduce the amount of energy from the sun that reaches the Earth's
surface, and therefore cause a cooling effect..
The IPCC has studied evidence of changes in these various factors and their
likely influence on the global average temperature. It found that the
variations over the 20th century can only be understood by taking all
factors, both natural and human, into account.
Land use changes such as the spread or shrinkage of forest areas can also
contribute to changes in temperature. The loss of forests can exert a
cooling effect by increasing the
reflectivity of the land surface, which means lower amounts of solar
radiation are absorbed. The IPCC 2001 report noted that the overall effect
of land use changes since pre-industrial times has been to produce cause
cooling, and that this has mainly been due to the replacement at high
latitudes of snow-covered forests by open, snow-covered areas. The report
noted that the level of understanding of the overall effect of land use
changes was lower than for other factors affecting global temperatures.
The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early
part of
the 20th century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a
decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot
explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC
concluded that there is "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The
report pointed out that natural factors on their own would have produced an
overall drop in global average temperatures.
A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature, found
that
the level of solar activity during the past 70 years has been "exceptional"
when considered over the period of the last 11,400 years. However, they
concluded that "although the rarity of the current episode of high average
sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual
climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong
warming during the past three decades".
Night of the Living Crackpots
Night of the Living Crackpots
John Black
BushIsA...@hotmail.com says...
If one did not know how clueless you are one would think your post is
pure sarcasm. No one could be this dumb but you clearly are.
The movie is not just inaccurate from start to finish -- it is
deliberately misleading. Gore knows the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro have
receded due to deforestation at the base, not global warming. In fact
the mountain is colder now than when it had all of the snow. Gore knows
this of course because its impossible that he doesn't. I could go on
and on with all of the misleading things in the film but they all take a
back seat to the main premise -- which is that CO2 causes warming. Gore
shows that graph "correlating" increased CO2 to increased warming. He
shows it at such a zoomed out scale so as not to show that the warming
leads the CO2 by 800 years on average!!! That's right, the warming
comes long before CO2 starts to rise (ocean release caused by the
warming). Again, Gore knows this but deliberately shows the graph at a
scale that hides this absolutely damning piece of evidence to his whole
theory. The warming caused the CO2. Every time. End of story.
Hang all Exxon Directors
Vendicar Decarian
> BushIsA...@hotmail.com says...
>> The film is a paragon of scientific accuracy in it's conveyance of
>> science
>> to the General Public.
> "John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote
> If one did not know how clueless you are one would think your post is
> pure sarcasm. No one could be this dumb but you clearly are.
POLICY LEADER OF THE YEAR
Al Gore
U.S. Vice President
The former presidential candidate is the preeminent spokesperson on climate
change
It sounds improbable: a documentary film about global warming, starring Vice
President Al Gore, has become the third-highest-grossing documentary of all
time. After his loss in the 2000 presidential election, Gore began giving a
talk on global warming to audiencesaround the world. An Inconvenient Truth
is the film version (also appearing in book form) of his multimedia
presentation. Remarkably, its heavy use of PowerPoint slides actually adds
to the narrative, which interweaves explanations of climate science with
defining episodes from Gore's life to convey a mix of alarm and hope.
The film is a paragon of clear science communication. It explains the
workings of complex physical phenomena, such as the jet stream, while
chronicling the reality of glaciers receding and the increase in carbon
dioxide emissions and global temperatures. Gore, meanwhile, succeeds in
bringing the "moral imperative" of reducing greenhouse gases to a personal
level, attempting toconvince viewers that their own actions can make a
difference.
> "John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote
> The movie is not just inaccurate from start to finish -- it is
> deliberately misleading. Gore knows the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro have
> receded due to deforestation at the base, not global warming.
Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
Of course. It's all so obvious now. Trees cause snow.
And moving tree leaves cause wind.
Trees excrete soil from their roots and make the rock that eventually become
continents.
The glaciers on Kilimanjaro have been receeding since the early 1900's.
What do the scientists say about Global Warming and Kilimanjaro?
Global warming began to take effect in East Africa by the early 20th
century. "The warming increases humidity, and as the air gets more moist, it
hinders evaporation," Hastenrath explained. "The energy saved from
evaporation is instead spent on melting. That might seem like a good
thing-to stop evaporation of the glaciers-but it's certainly not. Melting is
eight times more energy-efficient than evaporation, so now, with global
warming, the glaciers are disappearing eight times faster than before."
Ahahahahaha.... John Black... Perpetually ignorant Loser.
John Black wrote:
> I could go on and on with all of the misleading things in the film
Well so far you are 100% wrong, so it's best to stop while the hole you are
digging yourself is small.
John Black wrote:
> back seat to the main premise -- which is that CO2 causes warming. Gore
> shows that graph "correlating" increased CO2 to increased warming. He
> shows it at such a zoomed out scale so as not to show that the warming
> leads the CO2 by 800 years on average!!! That's right, the warming
> comes long before CO2 starts to rise (ocean release caused by the
> warming).
The process is quite simple. Temperatures rise, ocean temperatures follow
with a delay, the oceans outgas CO2 as they warm and the Co2 level
increases. This causes more evaporation, more heating, and more CO2
release. The process is self limiting.
Today however, we see a CO2 rise that is in phase with the temperature
rise. This tells us that the rise in temperature is not causing the rise in
CO2 as is often claimed by denialists, but rather the rise in CO2 is causing
the observed rise in temperature.
As the temperature rises by the action of CO2, the ocean temperatures will
rise with some 800 year delay, they will outgas more CO2 over that time, and
that will cause additional warming. Exactly as it did in the past.
No mystery here. Just Ignorance on the part of John Black and purposeful
distortions on the part of professional Global warming denialists.
H2P...@gmail.com
Joe Fischer
>The movie is not just inaccurate from start to finish -- it is
>deliberately misleading.
The title should be the clue, a scientific treaty of
merit is rarely considered to be so certain by its author
to warrant the word "truth"
And I fail to see how a warmer climate can be
inconvenient as long as there is at least 20 or 30 years
of transition.
>Gore knows the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro have
>receded due to deforestation at the base, not global warming. In fact
>the mountain is colder now than when it had all of the snow. Gore knows
>this of course because its impossible that he doesn't.
It seems some think that ice any place was always
ice, which is really clueless. Any mountain can acquire
10 feet of snow in almost any year.
The average January brings 100+ inches of snow
to Mount Wilson only 20 miles from downtown Los Angeles,
and Mount Wilson is barely 5,000 feet.
>I could go on
>and on with all of the misleading things in the film but they all take a
>back seat to the main premise -- which is that CO2 causes warming. Gore
>shows that graph "correlating" increased CO2 to increased warming. He
>shows it at such a zoomed out scale so as not to show that the warming
>leads the CO2 by 800 years on average!!! That's right, the warming
>comes long before CO2 starts to rise (ocean release caused by the
>warming). Again, Gore knows this but deliberately shows the graph at a
>scale that hides this absolutely damning piece of evidence to his whole
>theory. The warming caused the CO2. Every time. End of story.
>John Black
Well, that is stated too certain also, CO2 is being
emitted by man in quantity. But the rate which with CO2
is removed from the atmosphere is not known, considering
the huge amount of carbon in all the very thick limestone
deposits all around the globe, there must be a mechanism
that is not noticed that allows CO2 or carbon to settle out.
I can't think of any person who has appeared to be
more play acting as when Albore was before congress,
it is a wonder he wasn't laughed out of the chamber,
chances are most members restrain themselves just
because he is an ex vice president.
Personally, I am offended that Albore can sit
and conjure up the fake concerns, and manufacture
tales of extreme falsehood, about things so important,
a normal person would have more consideration than
to do that, even if they knew it was truth.
I can't think of many people who would be upset
over a few degrees warmer, if cities along the sunbelt
normally have temperatures in the 95 to 105 F range,
it can't be all that bad, because Chicago, Detroit, and
Buffalo often have temperatures in that range.
It seems certain that man can intentionally
lower temperatures, both locally and globally, but does
not have any chance whatsoever to intentionally cause
a global increase in temperature.
People on the beaches know that at any time
they may lose it all, and they may lose it all dozens
of times before sea level rises enough to take it from
them.
The whole premise of man is causing it,
and man must stop doing things that are almost
essential to life, is a defeatist mentality of weakness.
There is a real issue with heat and drought
in much of North Africa, and rather than just trying
to cope with one disaster after another, it should
be easy to put desert reclaimer equipment in place,
just a couple of poles with a sheet of metal, flat black
on one side and highly reflective on the other, and
have a sun tracker to always keep the reflective side
toward the sun, and that would have the black side
facing upward at night and there should be some
condensation on the black side from black sky
radiation, there is always a little water in the air,
and moisture collects on cooler surfaces.
Once a large area is covered to about 50
percent of a local area with these reflector, night sky
condensors, then things should start cooling down,
chances are there is soil in some places near
where soil can be mixed with the sand to make
good growing conditions possible.
Politicians who think that taxes are the answer
to any problem is an enemy of the people and should
be shunned by everyone, as not all charlatans are
aware of how bad they are.
Joe Fischer
harry k
What gets me is all the people who are making their decision to
believe in GW or not are basing it on a FRICKEN MOVIE. Is everybody
braindead these days? There is a world of information out there on
the 'net from people and cites who do not have an ax to grind and
nothing to gain from the 'politics game'. Get a life people!
Harry K
Vendicar Decarian
"harry k" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote
> What gets me is all the people who are making their decision to
> believe in GW or not are basing it on a FRICKEN MOVIE.
AmeriKKKans are pretty stupid... Aren't you.
Of course the movie is an exceptionally good documentary and a paragon of
scientific communication with the public.
On the other hand, denialists for months milked a piece of stated science
fiction by Michael Chriton in their attempt to prove the science wrong.
Hmmm what to believe? A Documentary that wins accolaids from the Science
community for it's accuracy and clarity? Or a bad Science Fiction novel
promoted by KKKonservative Propaganda organizations?
Hmmmm.. What do you think Harry K?
"harry k" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Is everybody braindead these days?
You are living in one of the most ignorant countries on earth Harry.
The average AmeriKKKan can't find their own country on an unnamed map of
the world.
Americans flunk Science Basics
Quick: How long does it take the Earth to go around the sun?
If you answered one year, congratulations. Count yourself among America's
better-informed half, and probably a Liberal.
Only 47 percent of Americans correctly answered that question (mostly
Liberals) -- an indication, science leaders said yesterday in Washington,
that although Americans overwhelmingly admire and support science, they are
quite ignorant about its most rudimentary revelations.
About 20 percent (Mostly Conservatives) think that the sun rotates around
the Earth.
Among those who rightly put the sun at the middle of things, 20 percent
think the Earth circles it once a day.
Fewer than 10 percent can explain what a molecule is. And less than 25
percent of Americans can describe any of the reasons for the thinning of the
ozone layer.
A report released yesterday by the National Science Foundation, the federal
government's primary agency for supporting basic research, also found that
Americans tend to equate science with high- technology gadgets, which most
people like, but not with the process of discovery that leads to new
knowledge and inventions.
``The good news is that even though the world is changing around us a lot,
basic public confidence that science yields a better life is very, very
solid,'' said Jon Miller of the International Center for the Study of
Scientific Literacy at the Chicago Academy of Sciences, which polled more
than 2,000 Americans as part of the report.
About 55 percent of Americans use a computer at home or at work, and about
72 percent say that the benefits of scientific research outweigh the harmful
results. Some 13 percent say science causes more harm than good; the rest
have no opinion.
``Most Americans think a satellite or a computer or an intensive care unit
are all examples of science,'' Miller said. ``But they don't get the process
of science. They don't know what an experiment is or what a scientific
theory is.''
The study found that 64 percent of Americans have no understanding of the
nature of scientific inquiry. About 34 percent understand some elements of
how experiments work. But just 2 percent understand what a scientific theory
is: an explanation of a phenomenon based on testable, repeatable and
generally accepted observations.
The survey also found that 40 percent of Americans are very confident in the
leadership of the scientific and medical communities. But only 1 in 9
Americans feels well-informed about science and technology.
And although Americans may not remember much of the science they may have
learned in school, they tend to accept scientific facts when they are
presented with them.
``One exception, where they reject standard science, is evolution,'' Miller
said. The latest study verifies earlier ones showing that only about 40
percent of Americans believe that humans descend from apelike ancestors. In
nearly all other industrial nations, about 80 percent accept evolution as
fact.
The National Science Foundation report comes out as reductions of 25 percent
or more in federal support for scientific research appear inevitable in both
Republican and White House proposals to balance the budget by the year 2002.
And next week in Sacramento, the Science and Technology Summit for
California will bring together leaders from industry, universities and state
and federal science agencies to discuss the impact of the proposed budget
reductions and the potential for expanding scientific research in the state.
The two-day meeting starts Tuesday and will include the release of a poll
about what Californians know and think about science. Participants will
include University of California President Richard Atkinson, White House
Associate Science Director Ernest Moniz and National Science Foundation
director Neal Lane.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> The title should be the clue, a scientific treaty of
> merit is rarely considered to be so certain by its author
> to warrant the word "truth"
November 12, 2006
Scientific American 50: Policy Leader of the Year
By JR Minkel and Gary Stix
POLICY LEADER OF THE YEAR
Al Gore
U.S. Vice President
The former presidential candidate is the preeminent spokesperson on
climate change
It sounds improbable: a documentary film about global warming, starring
Vice President Al Gore, has become the third-highest-grossing documentary
of all time. After his loss in the 2000 presidential election, Gore began
giving a talk on global warming to audiencesaround the world. An
Inconvenient Truth is the film version (also appearing in book form) of
his multimedia presentation. Remarkably, its heavy use of PowerPoint
slides actually adds to the narrative, which interweaves explanations of
climate science with defining episodes from Gore's life to convey a mix of
alarm and hope.
The film is a paragon of clear science communication. It explains the
workings of complex physical phenomena, such as the jet stream, while
chronicling the reality of glaciers receding and the increase in carbon
dioxide emissions and global temperatures. Gore, meanwhile, succeeds in
bringing the "moral imperative" of reducing greenhouse gases to a personal
level, attempting toconvince viewers that their own actions can make a
difference.
His appeal to individual responsibility is enhanced by the way the former
politician, often lampooned for his stiff speaking style, gives the viewer
a glimpse of his own life. In one of the film's strongest scenes, Gore
recounts how his older sister's death from lung cancer led his family to
stop growing tobacco-a painful metaphor for the industrial world's
predicament in coming to grips with excess atmospheric carbon.
The film provoked commentary from across the political spectrum. After its
release, the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute attacked:
"Carbon dioxide-they call it pollution; we call it life." But movie
critics drew attention to it by generally lavishing praise: "You owe it to
yourself to see this film," urged Roger Ebert. "If you do not, and you
have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."
The achievement of An Inconvenient Truth has been to bring the most
important scientific and technical issue of our time into the public view
better than anything before in print or film.
Bradly
> "harry k" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > [quoted text muted]
> > What gets me is all the people who are making their decision to
> > believe in GW or not are basing it on a FRICKEN MOVIE.
>
> AmeriKKKans are pretty stupid... Aren't you.
>
Liberals are stupid.
Intelligent Americans who watch Fox News know that global warming was a hoax
invented by Al Gore last year so he could make a pile of money and get even
with Bush for the election 7 years back. There aint nothing wrong with the
enviroment. Conservative common sense.
If you want real science, listen to Limbaugh. He knows everything, he even
went to college for a year or two.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> And I fail to see how a warmer climate can be
> inconvenient as long as there is at least 20 or 30 years
> of transition.
Ask the 30,000 Europeans who died in that heat wave a few years back how
Inconvenient sustained 105'F temps can be.
Evolution doesn't occurr on 30 year time scales.
Stupid. Scientifically Illiterate, Loser Joe Fischer.
"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> The average January brings 100+ inches of snow
> to Mount Wilson only 20 miles from downtown Los Angeles,
> and Mount Wilson is barely 5,000 feet.
20% of the worlds population get their water from glacial meltwater.
Those glaciers will be gone by 2050.
"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> Well, that is stated too certain also, CO2 is being
> emitted by man in quantity. But the rate which with CO2
> is removed from the atmosphere is not known,
Since we know precisely the rate at which it is being emitted, and the
precise composition of the atmosphere, it follows that by simple subtraction
we know how much is being removed.
Subtraction is too complex a concept for Joe Fischer's brain.
"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> Personally, I am offended that Albore can sit
> and conjure up the fake concerns, and manufacture
> tales of extreme falsehood, about things so important,
> a normal person would have more consideration than
> to do that, even if they knew it was truth.
No one cares what an Ignorant Loser like Joe Fischer thinks.
Here is what science thinks.
John Black
BushIsA...@hotmail.com says...
> > "John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote
> > The movie is not just inaccurate from start to finish -- it is
> > deliberately misleading. Gore knows the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro have
> > receded due to deforestation at the base, not global warming.
>
> Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
>
> Of course. It's all so obvious now. Trees cause snow.
>
> And moving tree leaves cause wind.
>
> Trees excrete soil from their roots and make the rock that eventually become
> continents.
>
> The glaciers on Kilimanjaro have been receeding since the early 1900's.
> What do the scientists say about Global Warming and Kilimanjaro?
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16905
"Scientists now agree, however, that the retreat of Kilimanjaro's ice
cap is due primarily to deforestation at the base of the mountain.
That conclusion has been reached by a wide variety of scientists and
scientific publications. Nevertheless, the Reuters News Agency has
teamed up with several extremist environmental activist groups to
falsely report that global warming is causing a retreat of Kilimanjaro's
ice cap.
Below are excerpts from scientific studies reported in journals without
a political axe to grind. There is even an excerpt from Nature, a left-
leaning journal at the forefront of global warming alarmism. Each
scientific study concludes that regional deforestation, not global
warming, is the culprit for Kilimanjaro's shrinking ice cap."
FACT: Dry Air the Kilimanjaro Culprit
International Journal of Climatology, 24, 329-339, doi:
10.1002/joc.1008, March 15, 2004
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/kaser_etal_2004ijc.pdf
"A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century
and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier
retreat on Kilimanjaro."
FACT: Temperature Not the Driving Force
Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 109, D16104,
doi:10.1029/2003JD004338, August 25, 2004
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/moelg_hardy_2004jgr.pdf
"It has been speculated that general global warming is directly driving
the retreat of Kilimanjaro's glaciers. However, detailed analyses of
glacier retreat in the global tropics uniformly reveal that changes in
climate variables related to air humidity prevail in controlling the
modern retreat. ...
"In the context of modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro, a particular
sensitivity of the summit horizontal glacier surfaces to precipitation
variability (magnitude and timing) can be confirmed by this study. This
fits well into the present knowledge of modern glacier retreat on
Kilimanjaro and in East Africa in general, initiated by a drastic
reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century."
FACT: Temperatures Remain Consistent
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, S48, June 2003
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/hardy_2003bams.pdf
"Kilimanjaro's glaciers are extremely sensitive to precipitation
variability, as on an annual basis, the summit climate is thermally
homogeneous, with a mean annual temperature of -7.1 degrees Celsius."
FACT: Deforestation Causing Dry Climate
Nature, November 24, 2003
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.environment/msg05757.html
"Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming,
researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the
more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-
laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is
evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Looks like you are clueless once again. Are all of these scientific
journals part of the big Exxon conspiracy? LOL. You are a joke.
John Black
>
> > back seat to the main premise -- which is that CO2 causes warming. Gore
> > shows that graph "correlating" increased CO2 to increased warming. He
> > shows it at such a zoomed out scale so as not to show that the warming
> > leads the CO2 by 800 years on average!!! That's right, the warming
> > comes long before CO2 starts to rise (ocean release caused by the
> > warming).
>
> The process is quite simple. Temperatures rise, ocean temperatures follow
> with a delay, the oceans outgas CO2 as they warm and the Co2 level
> increases. This causes more evaporation, more heating, and more CO2
> release. The process is self limiting.
>
> Today however, we see a CO2 rise that is in phase with the temperature
> rise. This tells us that the rise in temperature is not causing the rise in
> CO2 as is often claimed by denialists, but rather the rise in CO2 is causing
> the observed rise in temperature.
No, it tells us that CO2 is not the cause of warming as it never has
been in the past. The warming is caused by other factors.
> As the temperature rises by the action of CO2, the ocean temperatures will
> rise with some 800 year delay, they will outgas more CO2 over that time, and
> that will cause additional warming. Exactly as it did in the past.
LOL. For 800 years the warming caused the CO2, then after that, the CO2
caused the warming? Brilliant! If warming caused CO2 and CO2 caused
warming, there would be a positive feedback look that would have caused
runaway warming. Since that didn't happen, and we know that the warming
caused CO2, we can say that CO2 does not cause any significant warming
in the miniscule quantities that it exists in the atmosphere, then and
now.
Peter B. P.
> 1) Cite one inconsistency or somewhat misleading portion of the film
> ''An Inconvenient Truth.''
That is easy. Gore & Co. implied that we would see a multi-meter sea
rise by 2100, although the IPCC says 44 cm is likely and 90 cm is the
abslute worst-case.
This, and Gore's other exaggerations and general bullshit, of course
doesn't change that GW and AGW is a fact.
--
regards , Peter B. P.
http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
Joe Fischer
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
>> And I fail to see how a warmer climate can be
>> inconvenient as long as there is at least 20 or 30 years
>> of transition.
>
> Ask the 30,000 Europeans who died in that heat wave a few years back how
>Inconvenient sustained 105'F temps can be.
105 F would be a normal day in LasVegas or Palm Springs,
and people pay to go there.
Joe Fischer
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
Vendicar Decarian
"John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote
> LOL. For 800 years the warming caused the CO2, then after that, the CO2
> caused the warming? Brilliant!
Wrong again you Scientifically Illiterate Loser.
Changes in the earth's temperature have always been a result of the combined
effects of many factors. There are many variables in the equation, methane
is one such variable. Add to the methane content of the atmosphere and you
increase the temperature. Ocean temperature is another. Increase the ocean
temperature and it outgasses CO2, which in turn increases the temperature.
Increase the output of the sun, and you get an increase in temperature.
Reposition the continents so there is no landmass under the sourth pole and
you unlock a lot of water, raise ocean levels and change the temperature.
We know what the variables are, and we have measured how all of them are
changing. Solar output for example has slightly declined over the last
40-50 years But an amount that is far too small to be attributable to any
global cooling. Similarly Methane levels have stabalized after rising
through the mid 80's. and the continents aren't going anywhere too quickly.
CO2 however, has risen by 30% as a result of the actions of man, and the
science tells us that it contributes to the bulk of the observed warming.
Here is a chart showing the attributions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg
Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate, Worthless, Loser.. John Black.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> 105 F would be a normal day in LasVegas or Palm Springs,
> and people pay to go there.
Then they will be very happy when it reaches 120'F While the rest of the
country is 105'F
Vendicar Decarian
"Peter B. P." <pe...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk> wrote
> That is easy. Gore & Co. implied that we would see a multi-meter sea
> rise by 2100, although the IPCC says 44 cm is likely and 90 cm is the
> abslute worst-case.
>
> This, and Gore's other exaggerations and general bullshit, of course
> doesn't change that GW and AGW is a fact.
Antarctic melting may be speeding up
------------------------------------
- Michael Byrnes - Fri Mar 23, 3:42 PM ET
HOBART (Reuters) - Rising sea levels and melting polar ice-sheets are at
upper
limits of projections, leaving some human population centers already unable
to
cope, top world scientists say as they analyze latest satellite data.
A United Nations report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) in February projected sea level gains of 18-59 centimeters (7-23
inches)
this century from temperature rises of 1.8-4.0 Celsius (3.2-7.8 Fahrenheit).
"Observations are in the very upper edge of the projections," leading
Australian
marine scientist John Church told Reuters.
"I feel that we're getting uncomfortably close to threshold," said Church,
of
Australia's CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research said.
Past this level, parts of the Antarctic and Greenland would approach a
virtually
irreversible melting that would produce sea level rises of meters, he said.
There has been no repeat in the Antarctic of the 2002 break-up of part of
the
Larsen ice shelf that created a 500 billion ton iceberg as big as
Luxembourg.
But the Antarctic Peninsula is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth,
and
glaciers are in massive retreat.
"There have been doomsday scenarios that west Antarctica could collapse
quite
quickly. And there's six meters of sea level in west Antarctica," says Tas
van
Ommen, a glaciologist at the Hobart-based Australian Antarctic Division.
Doomsday has not yet arrived.
But even in east Antarctica, which is insulated from global warming by
extreme
cold temperatures and high-altitudes, new information shows the height of
the
Tottenham Glacier near Australia's Casey Base has fallen by 10 meters over
15-16
years.
MELTING POLES
Scientists say massive glacier retreat at Heard Island, 1,000 km (620 miles)
north of Antarctica, is an example of how fringe areas of the polar region
are
melting.
The break-up of ice in Antarctica to create icebergs is also opening
pathways
for accelerated flows to the sea by glaciers.
Church pointed out that sea levels were 4-6 meters higher more than 100,000
years ago when temperatures were at levels expected to be reached at the end
of
this century.
Dynamic ice-flows could add 25 percent to IPCC forecasts of sea level rise,
van
Ommen said.
Australian scientist John Hunter, who has focused on historical sea level
information, said that to keep the sea water out, communities would need to
begin raising sea walls.
"There's lots of places where you can't do that and where you'll have to put
up
with actual flooding," he said.
This was already happening in the south of England, where local councils and
governments could not afford to protect all areas from sea water erosion as
land
continued to sink.
About 100 million people around the world live within a meter of the
present-day
sea level, CSIRO Marine Research senior principal research scientist Steve
Rintoul said. "Those 100 million people will need to go somewhere," he said.
Worse, every meter of sea level rise causes an inland recession of around
100
meters (300 feet) and more erosion occurs with every storm.
"You can't just say we'll just put sea walls," Hunter said.
Night of the Living Crackpots
wrote:
> "Peter B. P." <p...@DIESPAMMERSCUM.dk> wrote
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Evolution doesn't occurr on 30 year time scales.
<Chuckle>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
> Stupid. Scientifically Illiterate, Loser Joe Fischer.
From Scott Nudds who knows nothing of science...
Retief
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Your Scientist
news:hD4Nh.11870$Sm.1...@read1.cgocable.net:
> The simple fact of the matter is that Gore's documentary
> gets all of the
> science right. He is clear, precise, and exactly on point,
> every time, through the entire documentary.
Plus he invented the internet so that we can chat about it.
Algore is the high priest of one of the fastest growing faith
based religions on the planet.
Your Scientist
--
http://www.globalcooling.name
Saving the world one therm at a time.
harry k
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:30:58 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>
> >"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> >> And I fail to see how a warmer climate can be
> >> inconvenient as long as there is at least 20 or 30 years
> >> of transition.
>
> > Ask the 30,000 Europeans who died in that heat wave a few years back how
> >Inconvenient sustained 105'F temps can be.
>
> 105 F would be a normal day in LasVegas or Palm Springs,
> and people pay to go there.
>
> Joe Fischer
And the only time they experience the 105 is during the short walk
from the car to the nearest AC palace. People in climes not
accustomed to those temperatures just...well...die.
But then why try to introduce logic to you?
Harry K
GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains
Joe Fischer
Have you ever been to Vegas? I spent an entire
summer there, and there was nothing greater than to walk
around in a T shirt, and be perfectly comfortable, when the
temperature was 110 or 115.
I suspect the temperatures are a degree or so
cooler now, there are lots more trees and lawns to
evaporate and transpire water, but the comfort level
should be the same because of higher humidity.
People who stay inside a building without
adequate ventilation or AC are at risk, and most
people that die from heat are old and either are
not able to get out, or elect not to.
Joe Fischer
Insignificant Flyspecks
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> Have you ever been to Vegas? I spent an entire
> summer there, and there was nothing greater than to walk
> around in a T shirt, and be perfectly comfortable, when the
> temperature was 110 or 115.
Exposure to sustained 115'F heat will kill you. The only reason you are
alive is because you could escape that heat.
Nature has no air conditioning systems by which plants and animals can
escape the heat.
BONZ0
There IS a Problem With Global Warming... It Stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 09/04/2006
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part
of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from
the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global
average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from
zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued
power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short
period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970
and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a
period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that
cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale
temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the
early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be
largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of
alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as
"if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or
ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been
inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate
from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or
from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in
Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating
warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records -
has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre,
and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues
rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on
several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead
making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under
intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research.
Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is
so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former
Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger
threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of
"millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he
acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a
temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than
today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher
frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were
as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has
proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable
shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies
have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two
million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a
sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century
phase of gentle warming.
The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its
public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all
long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a
recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve
environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing
pollution.
Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the
Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?
Regards
B0NZ0
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a
degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences
"Global warming, at least the modern nightmare version, is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But
what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.” Dr Gareth Jones, climate researcher, Met Office
UK
Joe Fischer
Stupid.
Man has lived in many places that hot long before
air conditioning.
The canvas desert bag is very helpful and works
on the same principle as the human body, evaporation,
and maintains a temperature of less than 60 F as long
as there is water in it
I would like to know what the temperature and
humidity in Las Vegas is today, prior to 1940, the
humidity was around one percent, with all the trees,
grass, plants and shade, it should not be quite as
warm, but the humidity may average better than
20 percent, and humidity reduces the effectiveness
of evaporation cooling.
Joe Fischer.
Shitbag McCain Adulterer
disgustingly sick joke."
"...they had been made unwilling victims of a disgustingly sick joke."
-- John F. McManus, President of The John Birch Society.
Merchants Challenge McCain's Cheery Assessment of Conditions in
Baghdad
By John F. McManus
Published: 2007-04-04 15:42
ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
Senator John McCain led several other members of Congress on a
fact-finding trip to Baghdad. After touring the central market place,
he and the others issued upbeat reports about the great progress our
troops are making. The next day, the area's merchants angrily told
reporters that McCain's description of the situation was totally
inaccurate.
Follow this link to the source article: "McCain Wrong On Iraq
Security, Merchants Say"
COMMENTARY:
It happened to be April 1st when the Arizona contender for the GOP
presidential nomination donned a Kevlar vest and went for a walk
around Baghdad's central market. There were plenty of U.S. reporters
and photographers documenting the event. And when McCain offered his
rosy assessment about the "encouraging signs" he claimed to see on
April Fool's Day, his remarks were dutifully sent throughout
America.
One day after McCain's remarks reached the merchants whose market
place has been a regular target of suicide bombers, several complained
bitterly. Shopkeeper Jassim Faiyad told reporters that the senator's
entourage was accompanied by an extra detail of more than 100 soldiers
in armored vehicles, attack helicopters circling overhead, military
personnel directing traffic away from the area, and sharpshooters
aiming weapons from rooftops. He said, "They paralyzed the market when
they came. This was only for the media."
The Shorja market place has been attacked so often - more than six
times in the past year - that numerous merchants have closed their
businesses, and customers who still dare to frequent the area have
been forced to alter their normal shopping habits. Rug merchant Aboud
Sharif Kadhoury, whose shop suffered damage in a February bombing, and
who incurred shrapnel wounds himself, said of the visitors, "They
asked about our conditions, and we told them the situation was bad."
Ali Youssef used to sell glassware from a sidewalk stand near Mr.
Kadhoury's shop. He eagerly countermanded what McCain reported,
"Everybody complained to them. This area is very dangerous. They
cannot secure it." He lost everything in the February attack.
McCain and the congressmen who accompanied him dared to paint a
remarkably different picture. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence told
reporters, "The most deeply moving thing for me was to mix and mingle
unfettered." He obviously didn't feel "fettered" by the Kevlar body
armor he wore at the time.
Another merchant named Abu Samer assessed the event and McCain's
commented, "He is just using this visit for publicity." Offering a
further opinion of McCain's motives, he added, "They just take a photo
of him at our market and they will just show it in the United States.
He will win in America and we will have nothing."
None of the Baghdad merchants knew that in America, April 1st is
the day when Americans play jokes on each other. Had any been aware of
that traditional practice, they might have figured out that they had
been made unwilling victims of a disgustingly sick joke.
================
Twenty-one Shia Workers from McCain's 'safe' Baghdad market murdered
http://newstandardnews.net/content/ion/index.cfm/bulletin/6860
Workers from McCain's 'safe' Baghdad market murdered
Twenty-one Shia market workers were bound and shot dead north of
Iraq's capital. The victims came from the same Baghdad market visited
the previous day by Sen. John McCain, who said that the American
security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress.
McCain took a heavily guarded tour of Baghdad's oldest market,
purportedly to prove that point. Vendors denied the market was safe.
It is not clear if the murdered vendors actually met McCain during the
jaunt he took with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Reps. Mike Pence and Rick
Renzi.
Shitbag McCain Adulterer
Vendicar Decarian
"BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> There IS a Problem With Global Warming... It Stopped in 1998
It did? Doesn't look like it to me. Strike 1.
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C
ources: GHCN 1880-01/2007 + SST:
Annual mean J-D
1981 27 ..........................
1982 5 .....
1983 26 ..........................
1984 9 .........
1985 6 ......
1986 13 .............
1987 27 ...........................
1988 31 ...............................
1989 19 ...................
1990 38 ......................................
1991 35 ...................................
1992 13 .............
1993 14 ..............
1994 24 ........................
1995 38 ......................................
1996 30 ..............................
1997 40 ........................................
1998 57 .........................................................
1999 33 .................................
2000 33 .................................
2001 48 .................................................
2002 56 ........................................................
2003 55 .......................................................
2004 49 .................................................
2005 63 ...............................................................
2006 54 ......................................................
> Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of
> the Climate Research Unit at
> the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average
> temperature did not increase > (there was actually a slight decrease,
> though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
There was? Doesn't look like it to me.... Strike 2.
1998 57 .....................................O...................
1999 33 ................................. O
2000 33 ................................. O
2001 48 .............................................O...
2002 56 ..................................................O.....
2003 55 .....................................................O.
2004 49 ................................................. O
2005 63 ..........................................................O....
2006 54 ...................................................... O
> Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period
> of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940,
It did? Not from what I see.... Strike 3
1918 -32 <minus>
1949 12
Meanwhile what do real scientists say....
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
9 December 2006
For more information:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.
These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.
The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies’ statement
(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).
harry k
wrote:
Maybe you should explain that to the plants, animals, an yes, humans
that live, thrive and even work in those conditions. Every hear of
'sweat'?
"panting"? 'shade'?
Harry K
Vendicar Decarian
"John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote>
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16905
The Heartland Insitutute? Ahahahahaha... The same people who claim that
smoking isn't harmful and that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Ahahahahahahahahahaahah
From the Heartland Insitute...
How harmful is smoking to smokers? Public health advocates who claim one out
of every three, or even one out of every two, smokers will die from a
smoking-related illness are grossly exaggerating the real threat. The actual
odds of a smoker dying from smoking before the age of 75 are about 1 in 12.
In other words, 11 out of 12 life-long smokers don't die before the age of
75 from a smoking-related disease.
In a 1998 article titled "Lies, Damned Lies, and 400,000 Smoking-related
Deaths," Levy and Marimont showed how removing diseases for which a link
between smoking and mortality has been alleged but not proven cuts the
hypothetical number of smoking-related fatalities in half. Replacing an
unrealistically low death rate for never-smokers with the real fatality rate
cuts the number by a third.
Controlling for "confounding factors"-such as the fact that smokers tend to
exercise less, drink more, and accept high-risk jobs-reduces the estimated
number of deaths by about half again. Instead of 400,000 smoking-related
deaths a year, Levy and Marimont estimate the number to be around 100,000.
This would place the lifetime odds of dying from smoking at 6 to 1 (45
million smokers divided by 100,000 deaths per year x 75 years), rather than
3 to 1. However, about half (45 percent) of all smoking-related deaths occur
at age 75 or higher. Calling these deaths "premature" is stretching common
usage of the word. The odds of a life-long smoker dying prematurely of a
smoking-related disease, then, are about 12 to 1.
Second-hand Smoke
Is second-hand smoke a rationale for higher taxes on tobacco or smoking
bans? The research used to justify government regulation of second-hand
smoke has been powerfully challenged by critics, including Congress's own
research bureau. According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of
exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists as a rule are
skeptical of any relative risks lower than 3 and dismiss as random ratios
less than 1.3. Science writer Michael Fumento and others have documented how
the threat of secondhand smoke has been greatly exaggerated.
The latest word on second-smoke appeared in the May 12, 2003 issue of the
British Medical Journal. Two epidemiologists, James Enstrom at UCLA and
Geoffrey Kabat at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, analyzed
data collected by the American Cancer Society from more than 100,000
Californians from 1959 through 1997.
"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco
smoke and tobacco related mortality," the researchers wrote, although they
do not rule out a small effect. "The association between tobacco smoke and
coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than
generally believed."
"It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is
roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day," according to Enstrom
and Kabat. "If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the
commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported
cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke--is highly
implausible."
Vendicar Decarian
>> Exposure to sustained 115'F heat will kill you. The only reason you are
>>alive is because you could escape that heat.
>>
>> Nature has no air conditioning systems by which plants and animals can
>>escape the heat.
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote
> Stupid.
You are not only stupid, you are a Pathetic fool.
There is no worse combination.
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote
> Man has lived in many places that hot long before
> air conditioning.
Immigrants die in US desert heat - Sept 2, 2004
The US-Mexico border is heavily policed, but many still cross
Record numbers of illegal immigrants who cross into the US from Mexico have
died in the scorching heat of the Arizona desert in the past year.
At least 229 immigrants are known to have died since 1 October 2004, the US
Border Patrol said.
Many died while wandering through vast desert areas where summer
temperatures regularly soar past 40C (104'F).
---
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Illegal immigrant death wave following desert's heat wave
Last weekend marked the start of the so-called "season of death," when
temperatures spike over 100 degrees and migrants begin to die in quick
succession. The deaths have increased in Arizona every year since the United
States successfully cracked down on illegal immigration elsewhere along the
border. Last year, 221 people died in Arizona trying to cross the border,
according to county medical examiners.
Heat waves, with day after day of unrelenting high temperatures, are
particularly dangerous. Four years ago yesterday, 14 migrants from a single
group succumbed to record-breaking 111-degree temperatures. Their bodies
were found scattered around the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and
the Barry M. Goldwater Bombing Range.
In July 2003, temperatures spiked in Cochise County, which is normally
cooler than Arizona's western desert. A string of 105-plus-degree days led
to 10 deaths in under a week, overwhelming the normally quiet Cochise County
Medical Examiner's Office.
---
Twelve Border-Jumpers Die in Ariz. Desert Heat
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
TUCSON, Ariz. - A sudden onset of triple-digit heat led to a rash of
deaths among illegal immigrants during the weekend in Arizona's deserts,
with 12 people reported dead between Friday and Monday.
Scores more were saved in nearly 50 rescue operations, U.S. Border Patrol
spokesmen said.
The deaths were scattered along Arizona's border with Mexico, but most of
the bodies were found west of Tucson.
Under a federal border control initiative, about 200 extra agents have been
brought into the region for the summer months.
Heat-related deaths have become common in Arizona as immigrants have been
pushed into remote and harsher terrain by agents cracking down in other
border areas. The state is the busiest illegal entry point on the nation's
southern border.
In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 55 immigrants died in Arizona because of
the heat, according to the Border Patrol (search), out of a total of 172
illegal immigrant deaths in the state during that period.
Temperatures reached 110 degrees Sunday in Tacna, east of Yuma, which is at
the California line. On Friday, the thermometer climbed to 106 in Sells on
the sparsely populated Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation (search) southwest
of Tucson.
---
At 104 degrees, the forecast is death.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703180177mar18,1,999092.story?
---
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/heatw.html
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote
> The canvas desert bag is very helpful and works
> on the same principle
Lets leave your mother out of this.
Vendicar Decarian
"harry k" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Maybe you should explain that to the plants, animals, an yes, humans
> that live, thrive and even work in those conditions. Every hear of
> 'sweat'? "panting"? 'shade'?
Sweat does no good in humid conditions and water isn't available in the
desert.
Animals that have evolved for desert survival don't pant, or sweat since
they must contol their water loss to survive.
Shade helps of course, but when the air temperature is 105'F, being in the
shade just means that 105'F is the minimum temperature you experience.
Prolonged exposure to temps of 105'F means death. And means rapid death
if there is insufficient water available, or if the humidity is too high to
make sweating effective.
When temps are expected to go above 100'F, the rule is one gallon of
water, per day, per person in order to prevent rapid death.
Shitbag Adulterer McCain
wrote:
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing
that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had
opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence --
these are the ones that were not excluded.
It confirms the activist website which merely quotes public knowledge.
TASSC "Global Warming"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Global+Warming%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Singer, F."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Singer%2C+F.%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Lindzen, R"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Lindzen%2C+R%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Michaels, P"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Michaels%2C+P%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick J. Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+J.+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Science & Environmental Policy Project"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Science+%26+Environmental+Policy+Project%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=521
#596 - A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
A new study concludes that this has been the warmest century in 600
years, and that the hottest years during this century have been 1990,
1995, and 1997.[1,2] This is further evidence that global warming is
upon us, and that humans are contributing to it by burning coal and
oil. (See REHW #430, #466.) "Our conclusion was that the warming of
the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of
greenhouse gases by humans and not [by] any of the natural factors,"
say Michael E. Mann, principal author of the new study.[1]
The global temperature varies as time passes because of natural
changes in sunlight reaching the Earth, dust from volcanoes (which
reflects sunlight back into space), and changing amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere.
So-called greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide [CO2], but also
methane and a few others that are less important) allow sunlight to
strike the Earth but don't allow heat to escape back into space as
readily, thus trapping heat near the surface, just as the glass roof
on a greenhouse does. Scientists have recognized the existence of this
"greenhouse effect" for about 100 years and they know that, sooner or
later, increasing the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere
must warm the planet. Thus scientists don't debate whether greenhouse
gases will cause global warming. They debate when it will be
noticeable, how big the warming will be, and what its consequences
might be.
During the past 100 years, humans burning coal and oil have increased
the atmosphere's concentration of carbon dioxide [CO2] --the main
greenhouse gas --by 25%, and the concentration is still rising.
Actual temperature measurements only go back about 150 years, so
temperatures earlier than that must be inferred from tree rings,
corals and fossils in the oceans, deposits left by glaciers, the
chemical composition of ancient ice at the poles, and fossilized
pollen found in lake sediments. The new study, published in the
British journal NATURE, uses many of these techniques to reconstruct
the Earth's temperature back to the year 1400 A.D.[2]
The new study bolsters the consensus reached in 1996 by an
overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, that (a) global
warming is probably noticeable now; and (b) human activities are
probably contributing to the rise in the planet's average temperature.
That consensus conclusion was published in the second Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[3]
which is an office of the United Nations Environment Programme and the
World Meteorological Organization.
For their part, the coal and oil corporations are not taking this
scientific consensus lying down. They are fighting back with a multi-
million dollar public relations plan that was recently leaked to the
NEW YORK TIMES.[4] These corporations stand to lose by the global
climate-change agreement reached last December 11 in Kyoto, Japan. The
Kyoto agreement binds the U.S. to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions
to 7% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. For a country like
the U.S., which has steadily rising emissions, the Kyoto agreement
will require cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would
otherwise be by the year 2012. (See REHW #577.)
In an attempt to undermine the Kyoto agreement, the energy
corporations plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the
industry's views of climate science and to train them in public
relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians, and the
public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify
controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's
heat near Earth."[4] The plan is being spearheaded by Joe Walker, a
public relations representative of the American Petroleum Institute.
The scientific talent for the public relations campaign is being
recruited by Frederick Seitz, who is a physicist, not a climatologist,
but who has an impressive scientific resume as former president of the
American Physical Society, former president of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), and president emeritus of Rockefeller University. Dr.
Seitz is also distinguished by being one of the last remaining
scientists who insist that humans have not altered the stratospheric
ozone layer, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
He is currently associated with two libertarian think tanks, the
George C. Marshall Institute and the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (see www.marshall.org, www.tassc.org, and www.junkscience.com).
Dr. Seitz injected himself into the climate debate forcefully by
attacking the IPCC just days after publication of the IPCC's consensus
conclusion that humans were probably contributing to global warming.
Writing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL June 12, 1996, Dr. Seitz called the
IPCC report a "major deception on global warming." He accused IPCC
scientists of the most "disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process" that he had ever witnessed. And he accused one particular
scientist, Benjamin Santer, of having made "unauthorized changes" to
the IPCC report for political purposes. It turned out that Seitz had
not attended any of the IPCC meetings, and he had not contacted Santer
to find out whether the changes to the IPCC document were "authorized"
or not. It also turned out that all of Seitz's charges were wrong --
the IPCC report had been peer-reviewed by roughly one thousand
qualified scientists and all of the writing in the final report was
fully authorized.[5]
Dr. Seitz and his associates at the George C. Marshall Institute are
now preparing to release a petition that they reportedly sent to
"virtually every scientist in every field" in the U.S.[6] There are 10
million people with undergraduate degrees in science in the U.S., and
half a million with science Ph.D.s. Of these, 15,000 science graduates
and 6000 with Ph.D. degrees have reportedly signed the petition, which
rejects the Kyoto agreement and argues that increasing levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the planet. The mass
mailing to scientists included a copy of an article formatted to look
as if it had been published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. It was not. The
article, which had been neither peer-reviewed nor published, argued
that the release of more carbon dioxide "will help to maintain and
improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all
people." The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) has
branded the exercise "a deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific
community with misinformation on the subject of climate change."
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the energy corporations plan to spend
$5 million over the next two years to "maximize the impact of
scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media, and
other key audiences." Their plan calls for spending $600,000 (not
including costs of advertising) on a media campaign to influence
science writers, editors, columnists, and TV network correspondents
using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited
specifically "to inject credible science and scientific accountability
into the climate science debate, thereby raising questions about and
undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'" The energy
corporations say they intend to provide "a one-stop resource for
members of Congress, the media industry, and all others concerned."
This latest plan to "educate" Americans about global warming will be
paid for by Exxon, Chevron, and other supporters of the American
Petroleum Institute. Previous similar attempts in recent years have
been funded by Exxon, Shell Oil, Unocal, ARCO, the British Coal
Corporation, the German Coal Mining Association, and Cyprus Minerals,
a western mining company that is the single biggest funder of the so-
called Wise Use anti-environmental movement in the U.S.[7]
Who knows? With enough money, it may be possible to convince Congress
and the media that global warming is not happening, despite the
evidence, which is considerable (see REHW #430, #466):
** Average global air temperatures have risen this century.
** The oceans have warmed this century;
** The level of the oceans has been rising this century because water
expands as it warms;
** Many glaciers have shrunk this century in response to warming;
** Plants are moving upward on mountainsides as temperatures rise;
** Rainfall --particularly torrential rainfall --has been increasing
this century as global warming has put more water vapor into the air;
** Floods are increasing because of more rainfall;
** In England, where climatic records reach back several hundred
years, spring has been arriving earlier in recent decades;
** The IPCC and the World Health Organization say that global warming
is expanding the range of mosquitoes that carry malaria, yellow fever,
and dengue fever, a trend that will put millions of additional humans
at risk from these diseases. (See REHW #466.)
** Computer models predict that global warming will be accompanied by
more storms and more intense storms, and, in fact, this has been
happening. To protect itself the U.S. insurance industry in 1996
stopped insuring certain storm-prone areas on the eastern seaboard and
along the Gulf coast.[8]
Already severe storms are hurting people in California, Alabama, the
upper midwest, and New England, to mention only U.S. locations where
extreme weather events have struck in recent months. Real people are
suffering. Affected individuals, and all taxpayers, are paying large
costs. If the world scientific consensus is correct, this will
continue until our use of coal and oil is cut by 60% or 70% and the
atmosphere can stabilize again. At present there is no possibility --
none--of achieving such drastic cuts because the oil and coal
companies are too powerful.
Global warming is the most important problem we face because it has
the potential to disrupt every part of the global ecosystem. It is
also the most important because it promises to reveal the fundamental
flaws in the permissive way we treat corporations: (1) we give them
the free- speech protections of the Bill of Rights, allowing them to
spend millions on disinformation campaigns aimed at maintaining a
harmful status quo. And (2) we allow them to manipulate our most basic
democratic institutions by pumping millions of dollars into election
campaigns. It seems clear that if we are to solve the global warming
problem, these two practices will have to change.
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
=====
[1] William K. Stevens, "New Evidence Finds This is the Warmest
Century in 600 years," NEW YORK TIMES April 28, 1998, pg. C3.
[2] Michael E. Mann and others, "Global-scale temperature patterns and
climate forcing over the past six centuries," NATURE Vol. 392 (April
23, 1998), pgs. 779-787. See also, Gabriele Hegerl, "The past as a
guide to the future," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 23, 1998), pgs. 758-759.
[3] J.J. Houghton and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE 1995: THE
SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1996).
[4] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate
Treaty," NEW YORK TIMES April 26, 1998, pgs. A1, A24.
[5] Paul N. Edwards and Stephen H. Schneider, "The 1995 IPCC Report:
Broad Consensus or 'Scientific Cleansing,' ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE No. 1
(Fall 1997), pgs. 3-9. ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE is published by the Center
for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020. E-mail:
ecofa...@bing.stanford.edu; telephone (415) 723-5924; fax: (415) 723-
5920.
[6] Colin Macilwain, "Petition strengthens hand of global warming
skeptics," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 16, 1998), pg. 639.
[7] Ross Gelbspan, "Hot Air on Global Warming; Science and Academia in
the Service of the Fossil Fuel Industry," MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Vol.
18, No. 11 (November 1997), pgs. 14-17.
[8] Joseph B. Treaster, "Insurer Curbing Sales of Policies in Storm
Areas," NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 1996, pgs. A1, D6.
Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; corporations;
kyoto; insurance industry; libertarians; think tanks; ipcc;
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Vendicar Decarian
"Your Scientist" <NOS...@globalcooling.name> wrote
> Algore is the high priest of one of the fastest growing faith
> based religions on the planet.
RECORD HEAT WAVE IN EUROPE TAKES 35,000 LIVES
Far Greater Losses May Lie Ahead
Janet Larsen
A record heat wave scorched Europe in August 2003, claiming an estimated
35,000 lives. In France alone, 14,802 people died from the searing
temperatures-more than 19 times the death toll from the SARS epidemic
worldwide. In the worst heat spell in decades, temperatures in France soared
to 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) and remained unusually high
for two weeks.
This summer's high temperatures also hit other European countries. Germany
saw some 7,000 people die from the heat. Spain and Italy each suffered
heat-related losses of nearly 4,200 lives. The heat wave claimed at least
1,300 lives in Portugal and up to 1,400 lives in the Netherlands.
In London-which on August 10th recorded its first triple-digit Fahrenheit
temperature-an estimated 900 people died from the heat. Heat-related
fatalities across the United Kingdom reached 2,045. In Belgium, temperatures
higher than any in the Royal Meteorological Society's register dating back
to 1833 brought 150 deaths. Since reports are not yet available for all
European countries, the total heat death toll for the continent is likely to
be substantially larger. (See data.)
August 2003 was the warmest August on record in the northern hemisphere, but
according to the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), even more extreme weather events lie ahead. By the end of the
century, the world's average temperature is projected to increase by
2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4-5.8 degrees Celsius). As the mercury
climbs, more frequent and more severe heat waves are in store.
Though heat waves rarely are given adequate attention, they claim more lives
each year than floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes combined. Heat waves are a
silent killer, mostly affecting the elderly, the very young, or the
chronically ill.
Under normal circumstances, humans maintain a body temperature around 98.6
degrees Fahrenheit. When subject to extreme heat, the body attempts to
maintain this ideal temperature by varying blood circulation and perspiring.
When the internal body temperature rises above 104 degrees Fahrenheit, vital
organs are at risk. If the body temperature is not brought down, death
follows.
The threshold ambient temperature at which more people are at risk for
heat-related health problems varies greatly by location. In general, when
summer temperatures range 10 degrees Fahrenheit or more above the norm,
incidences of heat-related illness increase dramatically. High humidity
compounds the effects of high heat by reducing evaporation, rendering
perspiration a less-effective cooling mechanism. When excessive heat
prevails for more than two consecutive days, the risk of heat sickness and
death escalates. Health and social services may be overwhelmed.
Heat waves take the greatest human toll in cities. Urban centers, where the
area of heat-absorbing dark roofs and pavement exceeds the area covered by
cooling vegetation, are like "heat islands" and can be as much as 10 degrees
Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding countryside. While people in rural
areas generally get some relief from the heat when temperatures fall at
night, urban areas stay warmer around the clock. Air pollution, which
usually is worse in cities than in the countryside, can also exacerbate the
health-damaging effects of high temperatures by further stressing the body's
respiratory and circulatory systems.
Several of the worst heat waves of the twentieth century occurred in U.S.
cities. In 1955, an eight-day run of temperatures over 100 degrees
Fahrenheit in Los Angeles left 946 people dead. In 1972, New York City
suffered a two-week heat wave that claimed 891 lives. More recently, an
extreme heat wave in Chicago in 1995 killed 739 people in a matter of days.
Slow political recognition of the threat and an overloaded response system
worsened the effects of the weather anomaly.
A lack of public recognition of the danger that high temperatures pose adds
to the lethality of heat waves. Heat wave warnings often do not carry the
weight of other natural disaster alerts. Except during major outbreaks,
heat-related deaths often go unreported, and few governments systematically
keep records of them.
Even once a heat wave has passed, politicians are reluctant to acknowledge
its toll. Chicago's mayor denied the severity of the city's 1995 heat wave.
In Europe, it took over a month for France's government to release heat wave
fatality estimates that corroborated estimates from overwhelmed undertakers.
Several neighboring governments are still challenging reports from medical
examiners.
Even in India, where heat-related fatalities in the thousands during
pre-monsoonal high temperatures are no longer uncommon, the National
Disaster Management Cell does not classify heat waves as a natural disaster.
While accurate data are hard to come by, it appears that India has seen the
number of deaths due to heat climb over the years as populations have grown
and temperatures have risen. In May 2003, peak temperatures of 113-117
degrees Fahrenheit (45-49 degrees Celsius) claimed over 1,600 lives
throughout the country. In the state of Andhra Pradesh alone, some 1,200
people died from the heat. A year earlier, a one-week heat wave with
temperatures topping 122 degrees Fahrenheit took over 1,000 lives.
Over the last 25 years the average global temperature rose by 1 degree
Fahrenheit, or 0.6 degrees Celsius. The IPCC's projected rise in temperature
for this century is a global average, but the temperature is expected to
rise more over land, where people live, than over sea. As temperatures
continue to climb, the toll of heat waves in individual countries could jump
from the thousands to the tens of thousands. The World Meteorological
Organization estimates that the number of heat-related fatalities could
double in less than 20 years.
Already we are seeing evidence of more frequent heat waves. In India, death
tolls from heat that were recorded over an entire summer some 10 years ago
are now occurring in just one week. In the United States, a 1998 study of
summertime temperatures using data from 1949 to 1995 found that the
frequency of extremely hot and humid days and the occurrence of multiple-day
heat waves increased significantly during that period. Some of the increase
is due to urbanization, a trend that is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future.
Although the historical data for heat waves leave much to be desired, we can
say with confidence that the August heat wave in Europe has broken all
records for heat-induced human fatalities. As awareness of the scale of this
tragedy spreads, it is likely to generate pressure to reduce carbon
emissions. For many of the millions who suffered through these record heat
waves and the relatives of the tens of thousands who died, cutting carbon
emissions is becoming a pressing personal issue.
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Evolution doesn't occurr on 30 year time scales.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> <Chuckle>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
>
> http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
Illustrating the selection portion of Evolution through natural selection.
Now comes your task of showing genetic changes that relax the natural
selection process.
So bring on your references Retief....
Oh, you don't have any.
Stupid. Scientifically Illiterate, Loser Retief.
jose
wrote:
> "Your Scientist" <NOSP...@globalcooling.name> wrote
The source of global warming revealed at long last:
Vendicar Decarian
"Your Scientist" <NOS...@globalcooling.name> wrote Re: Al Gore
> Plus he invented the internet so that we can chat about it.
Wired Owes Al Gore an Apology
-----------------------------
If Wired magazine considers its current laudatory cover story on Al Gore to
be a sort of make-good for the role the magazine played in launching a phony
press accusation against the VP in 2000 -- an accusation that took on a life
of its own and helped define Gore as a so-called exaggerator -- than Wired
needs to think again.
Wired ought to apologize to Gore once and for all. In fact, given Gore's
continued renaissance, with him being proven stone-cold right about the
dangers of global warming and the insanity of invading Iraq -- two positions
the MSM often mocked him for in real time -- it's likely Wired won't be the
last outlet forced to issue an apology of sorts for its previously dishonest
coverage of Gore. But if Wired acts fact, it could be the first.
Media and political junkies may recall Wired News played a key role in
helping create the myth that Gore once awkwardly claimed to have invented
the Internet. Indeed, Wired's new Gore profile can't resist revisiting the
tale in its headline: "He invented the Internet (sort of)." The
inventing-the-Internet charade represented a new low in MSM campaign
journalism; a case in which a fabricated story came to dominate the
coverage. And make no mistake, it dominated. In researching my new book on
Bush and the press, I went back to the 2000 election and counted more than
4,800 television, newspaper and magazine mentions during the campaign of
Gore supposedly claiming to have invented the Internet. The fact that it was
not true seemed to be of little interest to a press corps often obsessed
with tearing Gore down. (Gore was a fake and Bush was authentic, remember?)
The tale was first hatched by the Wired News, the "online home of Wired
Magazine." On March 11 1999, Wired's Declan McCullagh posted a nasty article
mocking Gore for his little-noticed comments to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that,...
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet."
... Inelegant wording perhaps, but Wired treated Gore's statement as an
outrageously false claim. (McCullagh later bragged, "I was the first
reporter to question the vice president's improvident boast.") To give the
story some oomph, Wired downplayed the real role Gore played legislatively
in helping shepherd the Internet's commercial applications to life (even
Newt Gingrich vouched for that), did not call the Gore campaign for
additional comment or explanation, but did include a quote from conservative
flak who ridiculed the VP. In fact, the GOP partisan was the only person
apparently contacted by Wired for its Gore story.
The caustic Wired story was quickly picked up by Republicans who, busy
planting the Gore-is-a-liar narrative in the press, began the mantra that
Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet. He never did.
Nonetheless, pundits on the right (Bill Kristol) and left (Mark Shields)
unloaded on Gore, as journalists ran with with the much more pleasing
"invented" phrase. Even in its follow-up Gore/internet article, Wired, which
knew Gore never claimed to have "invented" anything, effortlessly adopted
the GOP spin, reporting in the very first paragraph that Gore "claimed to
have invented the Internet." For that, Wired announced in 1999, the VP was
"spewing half-witted comments."
Admit it Wired, it's time for that apology.
Vendicar Decarian
"jose" <josef...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The source of global warming revealed at long last:
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070402.html
So say the ignorant...
What does science say?
A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society -
Englands
foremost Science Establishment
Misleading arguments 4.
-----------------------
The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of greenhouse
gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction
of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to
the climate.
Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing
than increases in greenhouse gases.
---
About half of the solar energy entering the top of the Earth's atmosphere
eventually reaches the surface where it is absorbed. Much of the solar
energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface and then released as infra-red
radiation, some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water
vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. The greenhouse gases act like a blanket
over the surface of the Earth, keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees
warmer than it otherwise would be, which is a phenomenon known as 'the
greenhouse effect'.
Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
enhance the greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming. It
has been long established that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infra-red
radiation. The IPCC 2001 report pointed out that carbon dioxide is "the
dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas", and is responsible for more than
half the warming due to changes in atmospheric concentrations.
Based on direct analysis of gases found trapped in cores of polar ice, it is
known that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for several
thousands of years before 1750 was about 280 parts per million. Between 1750
and 2000, during which industrialisation has occurred, the concentration
rose by about 31% to 368 parts per million. The IPCC report noted that the
current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been
exceeded during the past 420,000 years and that "the rate of increase over
the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years".
It has been claimed that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide is actually a consequence of climate change, rather than a cause.
The IPCC report pointed out that chemical analyses of the carbon dioxide
show that the increase in the atmosphere, and an
accompanying decrease in oxygen concentrations, are primarily due to the
burning of fossil
fuels and deforestation.
Although some carbon dioxide taken up and released by oceans or land, it
stressed that the average rate of increase in concentrations in the
atmosphere since 1980 has been about 0.4% per year and that this is due to
emissions. It stated "Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are due
to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to
land-use change, especially deforestation".
A number of other factors are known to influence climate and cause change,
particularly volcanic eruptions, variations in the energy from the sun and
particles released into the
atmosphere from both natural sources and human activities. Particles in the
atmosphere reduce the amount of energy from the sun that reaches the Earth's
surface, and therefore cause a cooling effect..
The IPCC has studied evidence of changes in these various factors and their
likely influence on the global average temperature. It found that the
variations over the 20th century can only be understood by taking all
factors, both natural and human, into account.
Land use changes such as the spread or shrinkage of forest areas can also
contribute to changes in temperature. The loss of forests can exert a
cooling effect by increasing the
reflectivity of the land surface, which means lower amounts of solar
radiation are absorbed. The IPCC 2001 report noted that the overall effect
of land use changes since pre-industrial times has been to produce cause
cooling, and that this has mainly been due to the replacement at high
latitudes of snow-covered forests by open, snow-covered areas. The report
noted that the level of understanding of the overall effect of land use
changes was lower than for other factors affecting global temperatures.
The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early
part of
the 20th century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a
decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot
explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC
concluded that there is "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The
report pointed out that natural factors on their own would have produced an
overall drop in global average temperatures.
A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature, found
that
the level of solar activity during the past 70 years has been "exceptional"
when considered over the period of the last 11,400 years. However, they
concluded that "although the rarity of the current episode of high average
sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual
climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong
warming during the past three decades".
Toleman
> The source of global warming revealed at long last:
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070402.html
>
>
whose detractors tend to be kooks who believe that they're conclusions are the
product of a grand socialist wealth sharing conspiracy.
Put them in the same kook bin as the 9/11 conspiracy nut-jobs.
4-years-ago, most people who are now pretending that the Sun is responsible for
AGW were claiming that it didn't exist, or had never heard of it in the first
place.
Joe Fischer
>The source of global warming revealed at long last:
>
>http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070402.html
That is a fantastic image, thanks.
It reminds me that the first video I saw of the surface
of the sun like that was made by an individual who set up
equipment to take video/movies in a single wavelength.
I am not convinced that magnetic fields and cosmic
or gamma rays are needed to cause clouds to form more
easily, but any real coincidence of patterns needs to be
looked at.
Joe Fischer
Exxon's Dick, Joe Fischer's Mouth
http://TobaccoDocuments.org Court Records
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html
Abstract
To circumvent its lack of credibility with the public, policy makers
and the media, Philip Morris (PM) uses the strategy of creating front
groups. Forming an artificial third party and then assigning it an
"umbrella cause" (one which happens to mesh perfectly with the tobacco
industry's) gives PM and the industry the opportunity to create a
wholly separate, and far more credible, mouthpiece advance its
policies and political desires. In PM's front group "Associates for
Research in Substance Enjoyment," (ARISE) "scientists" lumped tobacco
use together with innocuous substances like tea and chocolate, put out
worldwide press releases saying substance use was good for you and
declared public health advocates to be puritanical, neo-prohibitionist
party poopers. After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
declared secondhand smoke as a Class A Human Carcinogen, PM needed a
powerful group to rise up help discredit EPA's findings. Thus PM
formed "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," or TASSC.
Recognizing that the chemical, paper, metal, petroleum and other
environmentally-dubious industries would also be thrilled to have a
group of "committed experts" who would publicly say that scientific
warnings against their activities were not credible, PM invited these
industries to join TASSC. With the needs clear and a host of willing
help-mates waiting in the wings, PM created TASSC through a public
relations firm called APCO Associates, which helped PM distance itself
from the group. After a 2-month, $50,000 feasibility study done hand
in hand with PM's law firm of Covington and Burling, APCO began
forming TASSC. APCO did an admirable job of recruiting members for
TASSC, too. The "supporters list" (found in another document) includes
businesses from the "Family Loompya Seafood Market" and "Pinckneyville
Lighting" to sawmills, mining and chemical companies, including W.R.
Grace, Co., Amoco, and Dow Chemical. Today's document reveals the
goals of TASSC, and also APCO's enthusiasm for creating a similar
group in Europe based on its success in America and elsewhere. Title:
Thoughts on TASSC Europe Type of Document: Memo From: Tom Hockaday of
APCO Associates To: Matt Winokur, Director, Worldwide Regulatory
Affairs for Philip Morris Date: 19940324 Site: Philip Morris Tobacco
Company http://www.pmdocs.com/ Bates No. 2025492898/2905 Page Count: 8
URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2025492898/2905
03/28/94 15:25 '8`202 466 6004 APCO ASSOCIATES 0004 -3 - As a starting
point, we can identify key issues requiring sound scientific research
and scientists that may have an interest in them. Some issues our
European colleagues suggest include: . Global warming · Nuclear waste
disposal · Diseases and pests in agricultural products for
transborder trade · Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC products
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html
Thoughts on Tassc Europe
Date: 25 Mar 1994
-3- As a starting point, we can identify key issues requiring sound
scientific research and scientists that may have an interest in them.
Some issues our European colleagues suggest include: . Global
warming . Nuclear waste disposal . Diseases and pests in agricultural
products for transborder trade . Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC
products . Food processing and packaging
-5- decisions. The supporters of the Appeal are a loose-knit group.
The effort to expand the support of the Appeal is handled through Dr.
M. Saloman of the International Center for Scientific Ecology (Paris).
In discussions with a number of our scientific supporters and with Dr.
Fred Singer (a member of the Board of the International Center for
Scientific Ecology), there is belief that this initial support could
be organized into a more "formal movement" internationally. The
benefits of attempting to use this group as a basis of extending TASSC
include: Several of TASSC's scientists have signed the Appeal,
providing the opportunity to approach the supporters with a "peer to
peer" approach, i.e. , a "Dear Colleague" letter.
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI15842109.html
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1993 THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER A truth squad
for monitoring shaky science
Date: 28 Dec 1993
TASSC should work to make fiascos like the Alar scare as familiar to
students as rain forests or global warming.
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/82000099.html
TASSC The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
"It is neither reasonable nor prudent for major political decisions to
be based on presumptions which, in the current state of knowledge, are
still only hypotheses, although they must certainly be examined and
even taken into account. The more or less apocalyptic scenarios evoked
in the preparatory, work for the Rio conference are not the kind of
certitudes which can be used as a basis for political decisions likely
to entail major upheavals and heavy expenditure on a global scale."
~Michael Salomon, Editorial Director, Projections Quarterly, Autumn-
Winter 1992
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028363773-3791.html
Scientists for Sound Public Policy Assessment Project and Symposium
Date: 1994 (est.)
Length: 19 pages
EXPLANATIONS · The political decision-makers are vulnerable to
activists' emotional appeals and press campaigns · The opinion climate
tends to favour overly simplified solutions The precautionary
principle is now the accepted guideline. Even if a hypothesis is not
100 per cent scientifically proven, action should be taken, e.g.
global warming Europe's industry is often on the defensive. Action is
typically taken when it is too late. And industrial resistence is
perceived as protection of commercial self-interests.
Burson-Marsteller
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025493202-3207.html
Date: 26 Apr 1994 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
Many industries trying to establish groups to "communicate science"
and "to lobby" EUFIC (food industry) SAGB (biotechnology) Heidelberg
Appeal (global warming)
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024102283-2287.html
Date: 1992 (est.)
Length: 5 pages
SEITZ SYMPOSIUM
*Late lst quarter/early 2nd quarter
*Procedural Options for Addressing the Scientific Issue Highlighted in
Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies, Dr. Frederick Seitz of
the George C. Marshall Institute
*40-60 regulators--Ensure credible science
*TASSC
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046451070-1139.html
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
Date: 11 Aug 1994
Length: 70 pages
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802450-2451.html
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C.
Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW: From global warming and ozone depletion to
biotechnology and food additives
Dr.. S. Fred Singer (Moderator) University of Virginia; president, The
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Dr. S. Fred Singer, president The Science & Environmental Policy
Project. 9:15
===============
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Date: 09 Dec 1996
Length: 13 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/800298146-8158.html
Press Release of The Science & Environmental Policy Project "TOP FIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 'MYTHS' OF 1995 TO BE RELEASED BY SCIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT: List Challenges Costly Policies Not
Supported By Sound Scientific Data," January 10, 1996
===============
Philip Morris
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 1 page
2025802449
Jump To Images
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802449.html
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178213-8216.html
Philip Morris
Possible Individuals to Be Approached for Opinion Editorials
Date: 02 Mar 1993
Length: 4 pages
Candace Crandall -- Executive Vice President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
She has published extensively on junk science issues in the past.
Crandall' was the Director of Communications for the Center for
Strategic and International' Studies before joining, SEPP. The primary
focus of SEPP is too document the use of scientific data in the
development of federal environmental policy. SEPP is an independent,
non-profi research group that relies on private funding.
It will co-sponsor a conference with George Mason University in May on
scientific integrity in the political process, Crandall has arranged
for a number of prominent scientists to be participants, including Dr.
Bernard Davis of Harvard University and1 Sir William Mitchell of'
Oxford University.
Crandall is Dr: Fred Singer's wife.
===============
Issue Report Alexis Whither Environmental Regulation
Date: 01 Jul 1993
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s2/TI31741185.html
Dr. S. Fred Singer is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia and directs the Washington- based Science &
Environmental Policy Project. He is currently working on a study on
environmental regulation for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
===============
Philip Morris
Anthology of 950000's Environmental Myths
Date: 11 Feb 1996
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2048280356-0358.html
Copyright 1996 News World Communications, Inc. The Washington Times
February 11, 1996, Sunday, Final Edition SECTION: Part B; COMMENTARY;
Pg. B3 LENGTH: 1377 words HEADLINE: Anthology of 1995's environmental
myths BYLINE: S. Fred Singer
BODY: The primary mission of the Science & Environmental Policy
Project has been to study and analyze how science is used - or
missused - in the setting of federal environmental policies, and then
expose the most egregious examples of environmental malfeasance. There
are so many: Superfund, asbestos, Alar, acid rain, to mention just a
few - all of them costing mega-billions and backed by insubstantial
science. When we decided to list the greatest environmental myths of
1995, our board _ of experts finally settled on the following five
topics that demonstrate distortion or misuse of science in shaping
policies. We present them here to educate policy-makers and the public
in the hope that the publicity will lead to more cost-effective
policies and a healthier environment. (1) Global warming and the
Climate Treaty: During 1995, scare stories about a future catastrophic
greenhouse warming gained much momentum, while at the same time the
evidence for such warming became weaker and weaker. At the first
"Conference of the Parties" to the Global Climate Treaty in Berlin in
April, the science was ignored while the assembled "statesmen" went
ahead to establish a permanent secretariat and plan further mega-
meetings. In September, at the initiative of Al Gore, a Washington
conference promoted a new fear tied to global warming: a spread of
tropical diseases putting 3 billion people at risk. Finally, in
November (in Madrid) and December (in Rome), the U.N.-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific arm
of the Treaty, managed to approve two pre-drafted summary reports.
These can charitably be described as being "economical with the
truth."...
===============
Philip Morris
Is the Concept of Linear Relationship Between Dose and Effect Still A
Valid Model for Assessing Risk Related to Low Doses of Carcinogens? A
Restricted International Scientific Seminar 930510 - Paris (France)
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 5 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385383-5387.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Is the concept of linear
relationship between dose and effoct still a valid model for assessing
risk related to low doses of ets? A restricted international
scienfific Seminar May 10, 1993 - Paris (France)
The seminar is organised by the International Centre for a Scientific
Ecology (see Introduction to the Centre in the appendix). The
scientific work is organised by Dr Michel Salomon, the coordinator of
the Heidelberg Appeal.
Prof. S. Fred Singer, Doctor of Physical Science; President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, US Weather
Satellite Program; Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences,
University of Miami; Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); American. nationality;
Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal; former
science journalist; magazine editor; French nationality.
===============
Philip Morris
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Director the Science and Environmental Policy
Project
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178209.html
===============
Brown & Williamson
Public Affairs Strategies.
Date: 1900
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/1059809.html
(#8) SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT From a strategic
standpoint, we believed the most effective way to publicize the report
would be through a credibl]e highly respected "third party".
So we brought the report to the attention of the 'Science &
Environmental Policy Project", SEPP, as it is known, is a Fairfax,
Va., think-tank that studies and analyzes how science is used in
federal policy-making and encourages the use of sound science. After
reading the CRS report, SEPP was equally concerned the EPA's
conclusions and agreed more visibility was in or@er.
{#9) SEPP NEWS RELEASE With B&W's assistance, SEEP launched a media
relations campaign in January calling attention to the "Top Five
Environmental Myths of 1995." While such issues as "global warming"
and radon were on the list, the focus was on ETS.
(#10) WASHINGTON TIMES "OP ED" In addition to news releases, SEPP
wrote "Op ed" pieces and conducted interviews on radio and television.
SEPP is continuing the "environmental myths" campaign, extending
discussion of the subject to speeches by Dr. Fred Singer, SEPP's
executive director. It's one strategy to help balance the debate.
===============
Mayo Clinic
Length: 37 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/85002238.html
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY The Center has been
created at the beginning of 1993 under the French law for nomprolit
organizations.
The Board of the Center includes in particular:
- Mr Pierre Joly. President of the Association Francaise pour la
Recherche Therapeutique : former President of the International
Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association ;
- Mr Constant Burg. honorary member of the State Council ; honorary
managing director of INSERM : President of the lnstitut Curie:
- Mr Gilbert Rutman. chief mining engineer: President of the Conseil
Natioflal des Ingenieurs et des Scientifiques de France:
- Prof. S. Fred Singer. Doctor of Physical Science : President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project : former Director US Weather
Satellite Program : Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences.
University of Miami : Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) :
- Mr Gary Nash. Secretary General of the International Council on
Metals and the Environment (ICME) : former Director General in the
Canada Department of Energy. Mines und Resources :
- Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal ; former
science journalist : magazine editor.
===============
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122118.html
===============
Philip Morris
the Delaney Clause - Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2501171259-1262.html
The Delaney Clause-Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice Prof.
S. Fred Singer
S. Fred Singer Director, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Arlington, Virginia
===============
Philip Morris
Junk Science at the Epa
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178206-8208.html
S. Fred Singer Visiting fellovv at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University and President of the Washington. D C.-baed Science &
Environrnental Policy Project
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122122.html
Philip Morris
Sepp - Environmental Myths of 950000 - Smt Participant Broadcast
Details
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122119-2121.html
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 10 Jan 1996
Length: 3 pages
===============
Philip Morris
Seminar of 930510 on the Linear Relationship
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028443741-3743.html
Opening speech by Chairman of the Seminar, Prof. Bruce N. Ames
(Biologist'4 Dir., Nat. Inst. of EnvironmentallHealth Sciences Center,
Berkeley, U.S.A.). 9/9.20 a.m. · How biofogically based modeis may
help extrapolating cancer risk to low doses.
· The Delaney amendment and its consequences on the American
regufation. Prof. S. Fred Singer (Physicist, former Dir., US Weather
Satellite Program; President, Science & Environmental Policy Project,
U'.S.A.). 10.20/10.30 a.m.
Noon · Case studies: Predictions and reality. - The Arsenic case.
Prof. Gerhard Stohrer (former chief, Dept!. of chemical risk, Research
Inst. Sloan-Kettering~ U.S.A.).
The DDT case. Dr. William Hazeltine (Ph.D., entomo!bgist, former
Manager of mosquito abatement in California, U.S:A.).
===============
Philip Morris
Update 930419
Date: 19 Apr 1993
Length: 7 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025475593-5599.html
CONFERENCE/MEETING: Scientific Integrity in the Public Process
SPONSOR: International Institute of George Mason University and the
Science and Environmental Policy Project DATE: May 24-25, 1993
LOCATION: The Madison Hotel, Washington, DC TELEPHONE NUMBER:
703-993-8200
===============
BATCo
[Note from Heather Cooke to Tom Fitzgerald regarding report issued by
The Science & Environmental Policy Project SEPP]
Date: 27 Feb 1996
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/700520244.html
BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED To: FACSIMILE MR TOM
FITZGERALD I From: HEATHER COOKE Company: Brown & Williamson Phone
01784 448045 'Tobacco Corp Number: Fax No: Fax No: 0"784 448654 Date:
27/02/96 Pages To Follow: 3 Comments: I am trying to get hold of a
report issued by The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
which relates to the attached press release. Do you have a copy that
you can fax to me or know where I might be able to get hold of a copy?
Many thanks Heather Cooke Administrator, Smoking Issues
===============
Philip Morris
Toxic Policy at Dead End: the Case of Arsenic
Date: 10 May 1993 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502146148-6153.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Seminar on linear risk
assessment May 10, 1993 Toxic Policy at Dead End: The Case of Arsenic
Gerhard Strohrer Science and Environmental Policy Project 2101 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 1003 Arlington, Virginia 22201
===============
Philip Morris
Give Industry A Bigger Science Rol
Date: 19921229/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144040.html
Patrick J. Michaels is associate professor of environmental sciences
at the University Virginia and is affiliated with the Washington-based
Science & Environment Policy Project. The Science & Environmental
Policy Project, 2101 Wilson Blvd., #1003, Arlington, VA 22201 .(703)
527-0130
===============
GOP Adultery Party in '08
wrote:
The A.S.S. Coalition (TASSC) & Global Warming
GOP Adultery Party in '08
Stink tank has accumulated nice nearly $1 million retirement fund for
Singer any time the compliant board decides to bestow it on him. Has
interesting portfolio of stocks donated over the years, looking at
their IRS 990 report forms.
Besides listing three dead guys on it's board of science advisors
(presumably whom have advised by seance for 3, 5 and 7 years now), the
industry puppets on board are interesting.
Board of Science Advisors
* Bruce N. Ames (1928- ) Known tobacco shill on the payroll of
British-American Tobacco. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95
Participated in corrupt operation of ICSE in Paris, 2003. George C.
Marshall Inst., CFACT, Reason Foundation, SEPP. Signed Liezieg,
Heidelberg Appeal, OISM petition. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco,
convicted racketeer, front group for science crimes) Science Advisor.
* C.J.F. Böttcher (1915- ) Heidelberg Appeal scam, HAN, ESEF.
Funded by Shell Oil and two Dutch auto front groups, RJ Reyonlds
Tobacco.. Signed Liepzig. Founding member of The Club of Rome often
ridiculed by rightwingers for alarmism.
* Tor Ragnar Gerholm (1925- ) Moonie like Singer, ESEF fraud
operator, signed Leipzig Declaration.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
* Michael J. Higatsberger (1924-2004) Moonie like Singer. Leipzig
Declaration.
* Henry R. Linden (1920s- ) first president of the Gas Research
Institute, received Exxon-sponsored Storch award as far back as 1967.
Leipzig Declaration.
* Sir William Mitchell (1925-2002) Involved in ESEF fraud
organization. Leipzig Declaration.
* William A. Nierenberg (1919-2000) was a member of the Board of
Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute run by tobacco racketeer
Fred Seitz, board member of SEPP. Leipzig Declaration.
* Michel Salomon (1927- ) Corrupt head of ICSE science fraud
operation founded in Paris in 1993, particpant in several Singer fraud
operations. ESEF crook.
* Chauncey Starr (1912- ) founded the 'Electric Power Research
Institute', researching coal power, signed the Leipzig Declaration on
Global Climate Change "As independent scientists concerned with
atmospheric and climate problems ..."
SEPPtic Tank's Board of Directors:
Board of Directors
* S. Fred Singer, (1924- ) President. In a September 24, 1993,
sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research
on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the
American Gas Association. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco front group
for science crimes) Science Advisor.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95
* Frederick Seitz,(1911- ) Chairman. Tobacco shill once had his
likeness used for an RJ Reynold Tobacco ad campaign "9 out of 10
Doctors prefer Camels". Received over $660,000 (on the books, under
the table?) from RJR convicted racketeers over 16 years. Headed George
C. Marshall crime organization. Participated in multiple Singer frauds
since 1993. TASSC (Philip Morris Tobacco front group for science
crimes) Science Advisor.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=367
* Charles Gelman, (1931- ) Super kook, fined $1 million dollars,
plus $4 million clean-up for 1,4-dioxane pollution from his factory.
Sued and attacked environmentalist who made him clean up his mess.
* David L. Hill (1919- ) (officially replaced in 2000 by Mark M.
Brandsdorfer [14] although the 990 form for 1998 already mentioned
Mark Brandsdorfer instead of Mr. Hill) This Mark M. Brandsdorfer,
attorney at law for an organized crime operation:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Singer%20threat.pdf
Sugardaddies to Singer-Seitz-Ames include the Killer Koch Brother of
Koch Industries:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=150
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=159
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=161
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=162
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=93
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=114
Documents from the Dossier on Career Criminal Organized Crime
Fraudster S. FRED SINGER
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/652421224e3abb1d
MORE Documents from the Dossier on Career Criminal Organized Crime
Fraudster S. FRED SINGER
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/8375a042a3ac7de6
AND MORE Documents from the Dossier on Career Criminal Organized Crime
Fraudster S. FRED SINGER
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/bac212343615d03f
ANOTHER Career Criminal Organized Crime Fraud of S. FRED SINGER in
2001
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy/msg/0be71a1fba85f0ec
GOP Adultery Party in '08
GOP Adultery Party in '08
> I am not convinced that magnetic fields and cosmic
> or gamma rays are needed to cause clouds to form more
> easily, but any real coincidence of patterns needs to be
> looked at.
>
> Joe Fischer
FRED SINGER'S SEPPtic Tank
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
J. Michaels, and Steve Milloy
http://ecosyn.us/adti/Christy/John_Christy_CEI.html
Associate of known TASSC science-fraud felons Patrick J. Michaels, and
Steve Milloy, also continuous association with felony fraud organized
crime operation APCO Associates. Court records ordered to be
publically posted online for the nation to see unequivically shows
that TASSC was conceived as a criminal fraud operation by Philip
Morris Tobacco and engaged in a years-long series of public deceptions
using compliant science-hoaxers known as "whitecoats" by the crime
masterminds and moneybags.
Christy uses the "TASSC METHOD" of inserting errors into the public
record, which when caught are reluctantly retracted, but the false
results are quoted endlessly into the future by collaborative
operators. [Background evidence passed through due process in a
Federal Court of Law establishing the criminal fraud nature of TASSC
has been ordered posted online on the internet by the judge so that
every citizen can examine this evidence of fraud for themselves. The
trial ended with $280,000,000,000 settlement by the tobacco
paymasters, so this is hardly a trial which wasn't fought tooth &
nail. This is a very partial listing of evidence. Links: 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, ... Fred Singer
Euro-TASSC 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287,
288, ... Heidelberg Appeal 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, ...
Milloy TASSC 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, ...]
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
Satellite temperature record
Christy became famous as early as 1993 [creation of TASSC] for
claiming the global temperature was actually decreasing based on the
"more accurate" satellite data. But others over the years have shown
errors in his interpretation of the data which has slowly and
consistently increased his results. This is in addition to the
improving accuracy of the short data set [4] (it begins in December
1978). In 1997 his testimony to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works pointed out that his (and Dr. Roy Spencer's) data
indicated a decrease in global temperature. Before the same committe
in 2001, he stated it was at an increase that was "a rate less than a
third that observed at the surface" at 0.045 C/decade and it showed
"remarkable consistency between independent measurements [by
radiosonde] of these upper air temperatures". In 2003 before the U.S.
House Committee on Resources he stated his data was "less than half of
the warming observed at the surface." In 2004 his published results
showed a 0.08 C/decade increase. A new error in his interpretation of
the data found in 2005 has now increased his results by 60% in only a
year to 0.13 C/decade but he still claims "all radiosonde comparisons
have been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good" [5] as
was claimed in 2001 when his results were 1/3 as high as now.
---------------
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605190003
Fri, May 19, 2006 10:35am EST
In new global warming special, Fox News interviews scientists with
industry ties, records of misinformation ---------------
Fox News employs Executive Director of TASSC, Steve Milloy.
No reputable and law-abiding organization will have any TASSC
fraudster on their payroll, or quote them, or give them a platform.
Christy's affiliation with organizations employing TASSC fraudsters is
beyond accidental coincidence.
---------------
http://timlambert.org/2005/07/spencer/comment-page-3/
Fri 1 Jul 2005
Significant errors found in global warming study
Posted by Tim Lambert under science
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/gwarming/
Thu 12 Aug 2004
"When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do,
Sir?"
Posted by Tim Lambert under science
---------------
FACTSHEET: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, TASSC
--- KEY PEOPLE: S. Fred Singer, Science Advisor; Patrick J. Michaels,
Science Advisor; Steven Milloy, Director/Founder of Advancement of
Sound Science Coalition; Frederick Seitz, Science Advisor.
FACTSHEET: The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc., TASSC
--- KEY PEOPLE: Steven Milloy, Publisher, JunkScience.con; Bonner
Cohen, Board of Directors.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
FACTSHEET: Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI
John Christy Contributing Writer
Steven Milloy Adjunct Analyst (TASSC)
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903
FACTSHEET: John Christy
ORGANIZATIONS
--- Competitive Enterprise Institute John Christy, Steven Milloy
(TASSC)
--- Cato Institute KEY PEOPLE: Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow,
Environmental Studies (TASSC); S. Fred Singer, Editorial Advisory
Board (TASSC); Steven Milloy, Adjunct Scholar (TASSC); John Christy,
Conference Speaker; Robert C. Balling Jr., Conference Speaker; Richard
Lindzen, Contributing Writer, Reason Magazine.
--- Independent Institute KEY PEOPLE: David R. Legates, former
Research Fellow; Frederick Seitz, Research Fellow (TASSC); S. Fred
Singer, Research Fellow (TASSC); John Christy, Panel on Global Warming
Graphic of key relationships with John Christy and Competitive
Enterprise Institute and TASSC Fraudsters and other key operatives.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=561
* --- John Christy contributed to a book by CEI-TASSC Fraudster
Patrick J. Michaels. http://snipurl.com/qtrm Google Results about 77
for "John Christy" Shattered Consensus : The True State of Global
Warming.
* Table of contents for Shattered consensus : the true state of
global warming / edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
* --- John Christy is used on the book cover and sales pitch for a
book published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, authored by Ronald
Bailey (CEI Adjunct Analyst), Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How
the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death
* --- Google has 120 links to CEI.org website using John Christy's
"erroneous data", and has not corrected them or retracted them.
http://snipurl.com/qtt0 Google Results about 120 from www.cei.org for
"John Christy" "Patrick J. Michaels" | "Competitive Enterprise
Institute".
* --- John Christy is used on the book cover and sales pitch for a
book published by Cato Institute, authored by Cato-CEI-TASSC Fraudster
Patrick J. Michaels. Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global
Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
* --- TASSC operative S. Fred Singer's SEPP website has 35
webpages with Christy's erroneous data, which has never been corrected
or retracted. http://snipurl.com/qttt Google Results 1 - 35 from www.sepp.org
for "John Christy" SEPP.
* --- TASSC operative Frederick Seitz, and longtime partner with
Singer in SEPP, was president of the George C. Marshall Institute.
http://snipurl.com/qttx Google Results 7 from www.marshall.org for
"John Christy" Marshall Institute. Webpages propagating 'erroneous"
data from John Christy have never been corrected or retracted.
* --- TASSC operative Steve Milloy's Junkscience website has
Christy's Junk Science. http://snipurl.com/qtum Google Results 45 from
junkscience.com for "John Christy". Webpages propagating "erroneous"
junk science from John Christy have never been corrected or retracted.
--- Heartland Institute controlled website connects John Christy
to a known TASSC Organized Crime operation, APCO Associates --
http://www.climatesearch.com/newsDetail.cfm?nwsId=54 -- With TASSC
Singer, TASSC Michaels, and TASSC Seitz involvement. APCO created
TASSC as a fraud operation, and still maintains ties with the
operative "whitecoats".
* --- CEI-Registered website www.globalwarming.org has 40 webpages
with John Christy's "erroneous" data. http://snipurl.com/qtw6 Google
Results about 40 from www.globalwarming.org for GlobalWarming.org
"John Christy". Webpages propagating "erroneous" junk science from
John Christy have never been corrected or retracted.
* --- CEI-Registered website http://www.globalwarming.org/sitemap.htm
sitemap has two links that go off-site to TASSC-Ally Fred Seitz's old
lair at George C. Marshall Institute: Brief Synopsis of the Global
Warming Issue, and Guide to Global Warming - Questions and Answers on
Climate Change. The http://www.globalwarming.org/about.htm pretends
that "Consumer Alert" still exists, but the link is a dead parked
page. Further down the page "National Consumer Coalition" link
http://www.consumeralert.org/ncc/index.htm leads to the same dead
parked page. They are not even trying to keep up appearances of all
their phoney front operations any more. They do have a link to their
roots as tobacco fraudsters from the Good Old Days, in The Smoker's
Club website, with Competitive Enterprise Institute clearly on the
bottom of the page. Who knows how many more fly-by-night websites they
have out there posing as citizen's groups and grassroots coalitions?
BONZ0
> Immigrants die in US desert heat - Sept 2, 2004
> The US-Mexico border is heavily policed, but many still cross
> Record numbers of illegal immigrants who cross into the US from Mexico have died in the scorching heat of the Arizona desert in
> the past year.
> At least 229 immigrants are known to have died since 1 October 2004, the US Border Patrol said.
> Many died while wandering through vast desert areas where summer temperatures regularly soar past 40C (104'F).
> Illegal immigrant death wave following desert's heat wave
>
Oh puhleeeeeeze for god's sake, what else would you expect in a desert at the height of summer!
Regards
B0NZ0
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a
degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences
"Global warming, at least the modern nightmare version, is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But
what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.” Dr Gareth Jones, climate researcher, Met Office
UK
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
Apparently you are not qualified to diagnose your own evident
sociopathy.
I conveniently provided a webpage with the most conspicuous symptoms
listed: you don't need them all -- just three is sufficient for a
positive diagnosis.
http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Sociopathy.html
DSM-IV-TR Handbook of Differential Diagnosis
by Michael B. First, Allen, MD Frances, Harold Alan, MD Pincus
Paperback: 247 pages
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association; 1st edition (January,
2002)
ISBN: 1585620548
SOCIOPATHY
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders,
defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of
disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since
age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds
for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
In this case, we see symptoms #3, lack of future
planning, #2 lying, #4 aggressiveness towards those who can't stop
your
killing them from their position of vulnerability, #5 reckless,
disregard for those damaged by your words and acts, #6 no accepting
responsibility for what you are doing, #7 no remorse, and #1 is known
that you accept the criminal frauds of others and use them to your
purposes, making you a known accessory after the fact.
Did I leave anything out?
BONZ0
> jose josef...@yahoo.com said:
> The usual unsupportable myth, according to the world's leading climatologists
> whose detractors tend to be kooks who believe that they're conclusions are the
> product of a grand socialist wealth sharing conspiracy.
THE KOOKS ARE RIGHT!
... a full-fledged debate over global warming would undermine their agenda.
And what is that agenda?
Two international leaders have said it best. Margot Wallstrom, the EU's
Environment Commisioner states that Kyoto is "about levelling the playing
field for big businesses worldwide." French President Jacques Chirac said
during a speech at the Hague in November 2000 that represents "the first
component of authentic global governance
*******************************************************************************************************************************
Also, here are some interesting quotes
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to
bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
"Whether you believe the science [of global warming] or not is beside the point. Policy should be more about risk than proof." Jon
Anda Morgan Stanley Vice Chairman
"If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs." Philip Stott Biogeographer University of
London
"We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists." John Christy IPCC contributor
"So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might
have." Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford University
"We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist David Deming by the IPCC (1995)
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L Mencken
"Fewer scientific problems are so often discussed, yet so rarely decided by proofs, as whether climatic relations have changed over
time." Joachim von Schouw, 1826.
"Skepticism is the first step toward truth" Denis Diderot philosopher
"Global warming "a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to
rule it". H. L. Mencken
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".
H. L. Mencken
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, Nobel Prize winning novelist
"Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could."
Daniel Defoe
McCain Adulterer Shitbag
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Immigrants die in US desert heat - Sept 2, 2004
>> The US-Mexico border is heavily policed, but many still cross
>> Record numbers of illegal immigrants who cross into the US from Mexico
>> have died in the scorching heat of the Arizona desert in the past year.
>> At least 229 immigrants are known to have died since 1 October 2004, the
>> US Border Patrol said.
>> Many died while wandering through vast desert areas where summer
>> temperatures regularly soar past 40C (104'F).
>> Tuesday, May 24, 2005
>> Illegal immigrant death wave following desert's heat wave
"BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Oh puhleeeeeeze for god's sake, what else would you expect in a desert at
> the height of summer!
I expect temperatures over 105'F and anyone who is exposed to them for a
prolonged period to die.
But that was denied by one of your fellow Dung Eaters.
"BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything
> except for being silly, for letting a > few tenths of a degree panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National
> Academy of Sciences
We have passed a couple, passed several, past a half dozen, and are now
passing a few tenths of a degree. Up next is a full degree. About twice
the natural climate background variability.
Oh, by the way Bonzo, earlier you claimed that there was no increase in
temperature.
Were you lying then? Or are you lying now?
Vendicar Decarian
"BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental
> benefits...climate change
> provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the
> world" Christine Stewart, former > Canadian Environment Minister
Why was she fired Bonzo?
Ahahahahahahahahaha... You and your Denialis Brothers are Losers. Each
and every one of you.
Even Exxon has abandoned you.
You Pathetic. Scientifically Illiterate, Dung Eating Loser...
Ex-CIA chief says U.S. must act on climate
Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:07 AM ET
By Paul Taylor
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States must act to cap its emissions of
greenhouse gases and join the fight against climate change or risk losing
global leadership, a former CIA director said in a report released on
Monday.
"The United States must adopt a carbon emission control policy," John
Deutch, head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1995-96, said in a report
to the Trilateral Commission, a grouping of business and opinion leaders
from Europe, the United States and Asia.
"If the United States or any other OECD country that is a large producer of
greenhouse gas emissions is to retain a leadership role in other areas, it
cannot just opt out of the global climate change policy process," he wrote.
Deutch, an energy specialist who is now a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, also proposed an expanded use of nuclear power,
international cooperation to develop clean coal technology and a sharing of
the costs of emissions control between rich countries and large emerging
nations.
He advocated an additional tax of about $1 per gallon on gasoline, diesel
and other petroleum products in the United States, coupled with a tightening
of fuel economy standards for U.S. car manufacturers, to encourage fuel
efficiency and dampen demand, while recognizing that would be politically
difficult.
CAP AND TRADE
He suggested Washington use the same "cap and trade" system of limiting
carbon dioxide emissions and issuing emissions permits to industry that can
be traded, which the European Union currently uses.
His report to the council, created in 1973 to build a policy consensus among
capitalist democracies on three continents, was the latest in a series of
international studies highlighting the need for radical policy changes to
combat global warming.
Deutch also listed so-called geotechnical measures under consideration to
counterbalance climate change, including adding aerosols to the
stratosphere, placing balloons or mirrors in the stratosphere and even "high
altitude nuclear explosions to induce a nuclear 'spring'".
These ideas were so risky and hard to demonstrate technically that they
highlighted the need to redouble efforts to mitigate human-induced climate
change.
The report said the major industrialized countries must began a process of
transition away from a petroleum-based economy to reduce their dependence on
oil and gas imports for political as well as environmental reasons.
It also called for China and India to be admitted to the International
Energy Agency to improve cooperation among major oil and gas importers and
help avoid tensions over supplies.
While Deutch placed great expectations on carbon capture and sequestration
technology to reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations, notably in
China, a parallel report to the Trilateral Commission by French energy
executive Anne Lauvergeon cast doubt on that solution.
Lauvergeon, chief executive of Areva, which builds nuclear power stations,
said the capture and storage of carbon emitted through the burning of fossil
fuels was too often presented as a miracle solution.
"This technology will ... not play a significant role in the limitation of
carbon emissions for half a century," she wrote.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote
> I am not convinced that magnetic fields and cosmic
> or gamma rays are needed to cause clouds to form more
> easily, but any real coincidence of patterns needs to be
> looked at.
...
The film's main contention is that the current increase in global
temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes
in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991
by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that
recent temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good
agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the
journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of
"incorrect handling of the physical data". The real data for recent
years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has
declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed,
Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting
to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact
of mistakes - in this case in their arithmetic.
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of
demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered
a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun
and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for
global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They
had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global
cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-
Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a
correlation is not found.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his
previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik
Svensmark, declared there was a correlation - not with total cloud
cover but with "low cloud cover". This, too, turned out to be
incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to
show cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere.
Accompanying the paper was a press release which went way beyond the
findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and
current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa has shown on www.realclimate.org, five
missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the
press release. "We've often criticised press releases that we felt
gave misleading impressions of the underlying work," Schmidt says,
"but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation beyond
reasonableness that we have seen." None of this seems to have troubled
the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it
trounces all competing explanations.
The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by
conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the
discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the Earth's surface
and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the
programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by
three papers in Science magazine.
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of
the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in
the film. "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of
warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used
to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of
human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed
substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite
and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface.
This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the
satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their
labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the denial industry, some of
them, like the film-makers, shriek "censorship!". This is the best
example of manufactured victimhood I have come across. If you
demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been
debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the
idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising
global temperatures. Wunsch says he was "completely misrepresented" by
the programme, and "totally misled" by the people who made it.
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the
director Martin Durkin. In 1998, the Independent Television Commission
found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his
interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their
views had been "distorted through selective editing". Channel 4 had to
make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited,
and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought
down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy
works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species
came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence
which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases,
professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean
that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these
propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory
data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all
the evidence, on both sides of the question.
But for the film's commissioners, all that counts is the sensation.
Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science
unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed
paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning
people whose claims have been discredited - such as Durkin. But its
failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of
whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is,
the greater the controversy.
Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate
change
by George Monbiot
harry k
wrote:
> "harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Maybe you should explain that to the plants, animals, an yes, humans
> > that live, thrive and even work in those conditions. Every hear of
> > 'sweat'? "panting"? 'shade'?
>
> Sweat does no good in humid conditions and water isn't available in the
> desert.
Gawd. Do you _practice_ being stupid every morning? No water in the
desert? Wow!
Harry K
Vendicar Decarian
Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Sweat does no good in humid conditions and water isn't available in the
>> desert.
"harry k" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Gawd. Do you _practice_ being stupid every morning? No water in the
> desert? Wow!
I suppose this means that Harry K, believes that sweating without
evaporation keeps the body cool and that water is plentyful in the desert.
Are AmeriKKKans getting dumber by the minute? Where do ignorant FuckTards
like Harry K. come from?
If I had a Son who was as dumb as Harry K. appears to be, I would snuff
him just to relieve the burden on society and produce another.
Shitbag Adulterer McCain
wrote:
> Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sweat does no good in humid conditions and water isn't available in the
> >> desert.
>
>
> > Gawd. Do you _practice_ being stupid every morning? No water in the
> > desert? Wow!
>
> I suppose this means that Harry K, believes that sweating without
> evaporation keeps the body cool and that water is plentyful in the desert.
>
> Are AmeriKKKans getting dumber by the minute? Where do ignorant FuckTards
> like Harry K. come from?
>
> If I had a Son who was as dumb as Harry K. appears to be, I would snuff
> him just to relieve the burden on society and produce another.
The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Are AmeriKKKans getting dumber by the minute? Where do ignorant
>> FuckTards
>> like Harry K. come from?
"Shitbag Adulterer McCain" <Adulterer.Sh...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote
> The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger
limate Change Threatens New Dust Bowl
Apr 5 02:07 PM US/Eastern
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Changing climate will mean increasing drought in
the Southwest-a region where water already is in tight
supply-according to a new study.
"The bottom line message for the average person and also for the
states and federal government is that they'd better start planning
for a Southwest region in which the water resources are increasingly
stretched," said Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont
Doherty Earth Observatory.
Seager is lead author of the study published online Thursday by the
journal Science.
Researchers studied 19 computer models of the climate, using data
dating back to 1860 and projecting into the future. The same models
were used in preparing the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
The consensus of the models was that climate in the southwestern
United States and parts of northern Mexico began a transition to
drier conditions late in the 20th century and is continuing the
trend in this century, as climate change alters the movement of
storms and moisture in the atmosphere.
The reduction in rainfall could reach levels of the 1930s Midwest
dust bowl, Seager said in a telephone interview.
That doesn't mean there would be dust storms like those of the
1930s, Seager said, because conditions at that time were also
complicated by poor agricultural practices. But he said the
reduction in rainfall could be equivalent to those times when
thousands of farmers abandoned their parched land and moved away in
search of jobs.
Currently, the majority of water in the Southwest is used in
agriculture, but the urban population of the region is growing and
so the water needs of people are growing as well, he explained.
"So, in a case where there is a reduced water supply, there will
have to be some reallocation between the users," Seager said. "The
water available is already fully allocated."
He said feels that adjustments can be made to deal with the change,
perhaps by withdrawing some land from production and by conserving
water in urban areas.
"But it's something that needs to be planned for," Seager said.
"It's time to start thinking how to deal with that."
Jonathan T. Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of
Planet Earth at the University of Arizona, said the finding "agrees
with what is already happening in the Southwest, and will be further
complicated by the already declining spring snowpack due to
warming."
"These are scary results, but scary in part because they are results
of well thought-out scientific work by a large number of strong
scientists," said Overpeck, who was not part of the research team.
In other reports in this week's issue of Science:
-Researchers led by Alan Gange of the University of London reported
that as a result of warming temperatures some species of mushrooms
and toadstools in southern England have begun to fruit twice a year
rather than just once.
They found that some species that previously only fruited in October
now also fruit in April. In addition, the length of the fruiting
period has grown over time and in the last decade alone it has more
than doubled, they found.
-Deep waters in the North Atlantic some 125,000 years ago were
warmer than they are now and may have helped melt the Antarctic ice
sheets, according to researchers led by Jean-Claude Duplessy of the
Laboratory of Climate and the Environment of Institute Pierre Simon
Laplace outside Paris.
Deep North Atlantic water flows south and then rises to the surface
near Antarctica. The researchers said that current warming climate
trends indicate similar conditions to that period could occur in the
next couple of centuries.