michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 28, 2006 15:09:44 GMT 4
Be Worried, Be Very Worried The Climate Is Crashing, And Global Warming Is To Blamewww.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.htmlNow the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war · Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York Sunday February 22, 2004 The Observer Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change. Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change. A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch. One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible. Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change. Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.' Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored. 'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson. 'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace. Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated. Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.' Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said. 'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.' So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign. The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence. Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.' Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added. FOR THESE LINKS GO TO ARTICLE: tinyurl.com/34otxSpecial reportClimate change GraphicsCO2 emissions The world in the 2050s The greenhouse effect InteractiveGuide to drilling for oil in the Arctic Calculate your personal carbon count Key resourcesThe Kyoto protocol Bjorn Lomborg: Are we doing the right thing? Useful linksUN framework convention on climate change Greenpeace Friends of the earth
|
|
Anwaar
Administrator
Speak the truth and keep on coming.
Posts: 463
|
Post by Anwaar on Mar 29, 2006 9:06:01 GMT 4
This is catastrophic. I thought that the disaster will take some time yet when I wrote the following in the article "The State of the Earth";
"The severe rape of our environment has resulted in desertification and land degradation that threatens nearly one-quarter of the land surface of the globe. Over 250 million people are directly affected by desertification, and one billion people are at risk. Global warming is expected to increase the Earth's temperature by 3C (5.4F) in the next 100 years, resulting in several adverse effects on the environment and human society, including widespread species loss, ecosystem damage, flooding of populated human settlements, and increased natural disasters.
The above data is almost 10 years old. No rocket science is involved in calculating the prevailing situation.
This century, we are already in the midst of a bleeding war. In the twilight of gloom, one can clearly see the gathering storms of yet another war on the rapidly darkening horizons. Just as in the showers of blood, only the blood suckers thrive, there are some of us who want a perpetual war to perpetuate themselves. One can clearly hear the ominous rustling on the winds. Ironically, as the vampires are rising from the dead, the keepers of the silver bullets have gone to into a deep slumber.
Mark Twain was on the mark when he said;
“Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for ‘the universal brotherhood of man’.”"
Behold, it looks its already here.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 8, 2006 7:49:27 GMT 4
Pollution soaring to crisis levels in Arctic (March 12, 2006)CLIP: Scientists plead for action to save poles from 'tipping point' disaster - Researchers have uncovered compelling evidence that indicates Earth's most vulnerable regions - the North and South Poles - are poised on the brink of a climatic disaster. The scientists, at an atmospheric monitoring station in the Norwegian territory of Svalbard, have found that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere near the North Pole are now rising at an unprecedented pace.In 1990 this key cause of global warming was rising at a rate of 1 part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2 ppm per year. Now, scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have discovered it is rising at between 2.5 and 3 ppm.'The fact that our data now show acceleration in the rise of carbon dioxide level is really a source for concern,' said Professor Johan Strom, of Stockholm University's department of applied environmental science, which runs the Mount Zeppelin station. 'The increase is also seen at other stations, but our Zeppelin data show the strongest increase.'The news of the latest carbon dioxide figures comes as scientists prepare to announce details of the forthcoming International Polar Year programme, which will involve teams of scientists from around the world making a concerted attempt to understand the impact of global warming in the world's high latitudes. In particular, they will concentrate on the social impact of climate change there and also the threats to the regions' wildlife, such as polar bears and walruses.In the last two decades, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen from 350 to 380 ppm and scientists warn that once levels reach 500, there could be irreversible consequences that would tip the planet toward disaster: glacier melts triggering devastating sea-level rises and spreading deserts across Africa and Asia.Scientists and campaigners are desperate for politicians to reach agreements that will prevent the 500 ppm 'tipping point' being breached in the next half-century. These new data suggest they may have a far shorter period of time in which to act. observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1729253,00.html Your immediate action needed to save the polar bear!Thanks to courtroom pressure applied by NRDC, the Bush administration has agreed to consider federal protection for the polar bear, which is mortally threatened by global warming. But now we've really got to turn up the pressure! The Bush administration is taking comments from the public until April 10 before making its decision about whether to protect the polar bear. Go to www.savebiogems.org/polar/takeaction.asp right now and tell the Bush administration to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. Global warming is rapidly pushing the polar bear to the brink of extinction.Over the past three decades, more than a million square miles of the Arctic sea ice that polar bears depend on for survival has disappeared. And on the western coast of Canada's Hudson Bay, the ice is melting about three weeks earlier in the spring than it used to. Polar bears range over hundreds of miles of sea ice in order to find mates, hunt for seals and fatten themselves up for dormancy. But according to the best available scientific data, global warming could cause the polar bear's sea ice habitat to completely disappear by 2100! No sea ice, no polar bears. It's that simple. If the polar bear receives federal protection, the Bush administration will be required by law to ensure that any new federal actions -- including those affecting global warming -- do not jeopardize the bear's survival or harm its essential Arctic habitat. Go to www.savebiogems.org/polar/takeaction.asp and tell the Bush administration to ensure that global warming doesn't drive these majestic natives of the far north to extinction. Thank you for all your efforts to protect polar bears and slow global warming.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 17, 2006 13:38:37 GMT 4
Tut, tut Canada; has your government lost it's sanity also? From the Toronto Star:Climate change expert muzzled Federal scientist told not to speak about his novel Government also axes 15 Kyoto research programsApr. 14, 2006. 07:40 AM SUSAN DELACOURT OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF OTTAWA— The new, heavy communications hand of Conservative Ottawa has reached into the realm of fiction, with an Environment Canada scientist muzzled from speaking about his novel on climate change. Mark Tushingham's new book is called Hotter than Hell, but yesterday he was plunged into the icy reality of the new Conservative communications regime, where ministers, MPs and the media are encountering strict new controls over the flow of information to the public. Shortly before Tushingham was due to give a luncheon speech in Ottawa about his novel — a futuristic account of Canada and the U.S. at war over water resources in a globally warmed world — he received an email from the environment minister's office, warning him not to attend the event. Paradoxically, the incident takes place during the same week the Conservatives unveiled new "whistleblower" protection, designed to shield outspoken public servants from intimidation and threats to their livelihood. Also yesterday, the government said it was axing 15 research programs related to the Kyoto climate-change protocol and aimed at reducing the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.Sandra Buckler, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's communications director, says the gag order against Tushingham did not come from the top and Harper told reporters yesterday he was in the dark about the incident. But Harper then added, in a not-so-subtle warning to the public service: "We were elected on a particular platform. Our commitment to the people of Canada is to go ahead with that platform. That will include measures we're going to develop over the next year or so to deal with both pollution and greenhouse gases, and I obviously not only hope but expect that all elements of the bureaucracy will be working with us to achieve those objectives." Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, in an email, said Tushingham's mistake was in billing himself as a government representative, though he only appeared as such on a Canadian Press advisory to the media about the event. Tushingham's book jacket and the promotional materials merely describe him as an Ottawa scientist. Neither Ambrose nor anyone in her department said they had problems with the scientific or any other premises behind the book. Tushingham was also warned not to speak to reporters and spent much of yesterday in hiding, said his publisher, Elizabeth Margaris, head of DreamCatcher Publishing. Margaris flew into Ottawa from New Brunswick specifically to introduce her author at the luncheon, only to learn upon her arrival that he was not allowed to speak. Biographical information in the book says that Tushingham obtained his doctorate in 1989 and "has worked on climate change and other environmental issues since 1981." Canada has been unable to meet its Kyoto commitment to cut greenhouse gases and Harper, whose party has been much cooler to the accord than the Liberals, has said it is time for a new approach. Environmentalists have asked the opposition to bring down the government if it abandons Canada's Kyoto commitment. Margaris was visibly shaken by the gagging. "Isn't this outrageous?" Margaris said. "This has never happened to me before." "It's a first for us, too," said Rosaleen Dickson, who organized the event at the National Press Club. It went ahead with a last-minute replacement speaker from the audience. A couple of dozen baffled guests were on hand, some of whom had bought the book but had to do without the author's signature. Margaris was to get together with Tushingham later yesterday, but he told her he was lying low and cancelled that meeting. Tushingham and his wife were also planning to stay away from their home yesterday evening so the media couldn't find them, said Margaris. "I just don't believe this," Margaris said. She said Tushingham is worried about losing his job. The PMO insists that the information chill in Ottawa is more perceived than real — a product of a media culture that got too accustomed to the hyper-availability of former prime minister Paul Martin's regime. Yet in Ottawa, everyone seems to have a story of lips being sealed, communications shut down or thwarted. Bureaucrats are talking about "the new normal" — a world where every utterance to outsiders or journalists can incur the wrath of the new government. Ambrose abruptly cancelled an interview with a national columnist this week after her office had already warned she would not take questions on the issue of the Kyoto accord. Ambrose calls this an unfortunate mixup, but it does fit with the tightly scripted, highly centralized communications style the PMO is trying to establish. With files from Canadian Press Source: tinyurl.com/oj836
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 18, 2006 17:11:30 GMT 4
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 2, 2006 20:09:34 GMT 4
Global Warming exposes the "Non-Christianess" of Church going "Neo-conservatives"by Pastor John, International Affairs Columnist Humanity faces a worsening disaster that threatens to accelerate into a horrific catastrophe of truly monumental proportions. This particular threat that I am referring to, is Global Warming. The question that many people may ask is, how, did humanity get to such a crisis stage on planet Earth. Of course, it is perhaps easy to blame "benign" oversights by policy makers, who are "blindly" pre-occupied with economic growth at the expense of environmental protection. However, what is rather bazaar is governments like the United States that refuse to substantively modify Global Warming related activity. Indeed, the Bush administration is aware of Global Warming, and apparently has chosen to do nothing. In Canada, Stephen Harper's minority government with ideological ties to the Bush administration, has refused to affirm the integrity of the Kyoto Protocol. Notably, both the Bush administration in the United States and the Harper minority government in Canada, have presented to their respective societies, "Christian" professings. However, isn't it true that Christians believe that G-d created the Universe, the Heavens, the Earth, and all its living creatures? Now think for a moment. Theoretically, shouldn't such supposedly "Christian" inspired governments be the greatest champions of safeguarding the planet from the devastating effects of Global Warming. It is furthermore astonishing the extent to which these supposedly "Christian" inspired political constellations are presiding over the wilful destruction of planet Earth. The Bible does, however, present critical insight into the apparent contradiction between the "Christian" professings of the Bush administration, and of that administration's "branch plant operatives" represented in the Harper minority government. Matthew 7:16 of the King James Version of the Bible expresses that "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" The implication of Matthews 7:16 is to appreciate the values of someone, and of an organization, not by their public relations statement; but by their actions. The teachings of Jesus relied on the expression of deeds, which consistently affirmed respect for each other, and for the planet that nourishes life, along with having values of lovingkindness in general, human rights, social justice against oppression, and peace in the world. The absolute and total negligence by the neo-conservative governments in Canada and the United States on Global Warming, proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that these governments are not inspired by the Bible of Christianity. It further proves that Christianity to "neo-conservatives" who have been frequently been identified as the "Christian Right", is little more than a ruse. Christianity as directly inspired by Jesus, is an inherently progressive; and no group can credibly claim to be Christian while presiding over Global Warming. Such a group in Canada and the United States, could be viewed to be what the Bible referred to as "wolves in sheep clothing". The "neo-conservatives" in the U.S. and Canada who preside over the destruction of planet Earth via Global Warming represent a 'Cult' that does not appear to revere what G-d has supposedly created. Instead "neo-conservatives" worship and pursue Mammon in their greed driven pursuit of Oil Wars, and in the theft of other "resources" for the self-absorbed materialistic endeavours of "the rich" irrespective of social and environmental costs. Leo Strauss has been recognized as the founder of the "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. He was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, who incredulously idolized Nazism. The diatribes that neo-conservatives have against liberals are "Straussian" in origin. Strauss perceived the Nazi state, as an instrument to save the world from "liberalism". Strauss perceived that liberal values in fact included lovingkindness, human rights, social justice, and peace, and other values that Jesus embraced, as "weakening" society. Strauss also deplored such values as 'multiculturalism' . In his view, society need the kind of "strong" leadership which Adolf Hitler attempted to provide, guided by "great myths", that may be used to bring a society together. "Myth-making" Nazi techniques include the Great Lie, deception, along with militarism. Strauss embraced the proto-Nazi philosophy of Frederich Nietzche, who hated Jesus and the enlightened values that Jesus inspired in the West. Author Travis J. Denneson stipulates that "In a Nietzsche book, The Antichrist, he set out to denounce and illegitimate not only Christianity itself as a belief and a practice, but also the ethical-moral value system which modern western civilization has inherited from it. It is apparent that the professed "Christianity" of "neo-conservatives" is consistent with being some kind of ingenious Straussian ruse. Indeed, neo-conservative ideas emerged from a Nietzchian "Cult of the Anti-Christ". Neo-conservative negligence on Global Warming, as well as ignoring the plight of the poor, as supporting war over peace; ignorance over enlightenment; and commercial profit over saving lives from illnesses and genocide, is perfectly consistent with the Mammonistic prejudices of Leo Strauss as the credited founder of neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatives are a commercially wealthy clique of capitalists, who have used their access to the purchasing power of money, to co-opt and attempt to re-construct Christianity in their own bleak draconian image that now presides over the destruction of planet Earth. While Jesus sought peace, "neo-conservatives" seek to construct a Mammonistic "Cult of Anti-Christianity", that thrives on creating social Chaos (and profitable profit opportunities), in their quest for a New World Order. Well, how does Global Warming fit into all this Anti-Christ stuff, you might wonder? A cult of "Anti-Christians" does not refer to a 'secular group that "does not believe in G-d", or that Jesus is the Son of G-d. An Anti-Christ cult herein is being referred to as "a religious group that would believe that G-d indeed created the Universe, the Heavens, and the Earth. This cult seeks to purposefully destroy what they believe G-d as their "rival" has created." Accordingly these "Anti-Christians", actually embrace "Anti-Gospels". Straussian "neo-conservatives" have ingeniously sabotaged the integrity of Christianity, by using money to compromise the activities and the priorities of the Churches, in the same way that they have sabotaged the integrity of political parties. This destruction includes 'Republicans' in the United States, which had been a different party in American history, and it also in Canada includes the former Progressive Conservative Party, that had been against "Straussianism". "Anti-Christians" are fanatics who would therefore seek to "undo" in their apparent view, the 'Book of Genesis', by "watching the world destroy itself" toward the establishment of the domain of absolutism that they seek. Humans are born with a sense of beauty and awe at the majesty of the environment that substantive Christians believe was created by G-d. Humans are born with a sense of indignation at seeing destroyed parts of the environment, that they are linked with spiritually. These same humans express empathy for other humans who suffer; and for example, decry that Polar Bears in Canada's Arctic may become extinct. Environmental activists are people who are spiritually inspired by this human spiritual connectiveness, and who are prepared to work toward specific political action, as part of their expression of Consciousness. The followers of the Straussian "Cult of Mammon", see themselves as having "matured' from such an affinity to Nature as such, other than as a means of pursuing insatiable commercial profit, status and power. The Straussians do not worship G-d, but instead, see themselves as being descendants to "Teutonic gods" like the Nazis, who must "tame nature", created by a "flawed G-d", and a "flawed Son of G-d", and who must suppress "mis-guided disciples" that have led to "disorderly society". Straussians embrace "the values of empire" that established "Order" in the former imperiums of Egypt, Rome, Tartarian Mongolia, (that came before the creation of Nazi Germany). Leo Strauss thought that by specifically "taking away anti-Semitic feature of Nazism", with the tactic of cleverly using Christian "myth" and ceremonies to control the masses (like the Roman Empire), would create the "perfect form of Nazism". He envisioned this "perfected Nazism" inspired in part by Nietzsche book, The Antichrist, would be in the guise of a "neo-Conservative" "Christian" Right.In their pursuit of a "Globalized New World Order", "Anti-Christians" seek to support a "creative Chaos" in their own apparent view, which will lead to a 'Brave New World'. In this "Brave New World", rising oceans will "wash away" the "inferior races" which the Nazi sought to exterminate. And, only the "the fittest will survive", "as it was meant to be", under the determination of a military-industrial complex, that rations even scarcer resources. This seems 'crazy', until one reads and appreciates the fanatical cult writings of Straussian neo-conservative ideologues, and also their philosophical representations, that are somewhat reminiscent of David Koresh's apocalyptical Davidians, but which are however more schooled. The "Cult of Mammon" views their conquest over what the masses popularly view to be "Christianity" as part of a process of "replacing a societally mis-directing Christianity". The Cult of Mammon presides over Global Warming, in particular, so that its devastating effects will destroy world ecosystems, and the independence of 'population groups', alongside with worsening strife. Notwithstanding the rather warped notions of economic development that have existed under European colonialization, any rational government, that has received the kind of findings, which are presented by learned groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, would at least seek to substantively achieve the relatively modest objectives of Kyoto Protocols. A rational government would galvanize policies that would complement the desire to safeguard the protection of the Earth that Christians, aboriginal peoples, Buddhists, Hindus, and other religious groups who believe in G-d as the 'Creator' view as sacred. Accordingly, to the extent that governments of the U.S., and Canada, ignore redressing the well-documented scientific evidence on Global Warming, these prevailing governments are also guided by a parallel "irrationality", that had been displayed by an apparent apocalyptic mindset like that of the Waco Davidians. The 'Cult of Mammon' parasitically seeks worsening strife, in order to legitimate the imposition of its needed "Order" through fascist control. Indeed, this is exactly how the so-called "War on Terrorism" has proceeded, in its legitimizing of undermining human rights based upon scripted villains. The 'Cult of Mammon' therefore seeks to create a dependency on fascist order, by allowing the planet and constituent societies to "go to Hell". In the view of the "Cult of Mammon", G-d "erred" in creating a 'Paradise of Eden' in the Book of Genesis, which made humankind into a "weakened race". Therefore, Global Warming will serve to correct the "errors" made by G-d, in creating a world of "liberal promiscuity" without "Order", that must instead be ruled by "wise men". Yes, it is reported that Straussians, comprise a sexist clique of predominately men, who are from "privileged racial stock and wealth". Humanity's fate relies, in part, on saving itself from Global Warming, by re-affirming the very enlightened spiritual values which the Bible and other religious texts express. These are the values which Straussians have sought to destroy toward their pursuit of a "New World Order" that is being executed under the mantra of Corporate "Globalization". Christians and other responsible members of society in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, must evolve from the prevailing prism that is conditioned by a "Cult of Mammon" in order to save the planet, before it is too late. It is not necessary for policy makers to become "true disciples of Jesus", or a corresponding faith, that is the opposite of the apparent prevailing Straussian cult . However, it is vital that societies appreciate the kind of general utopian wisdoms that religious texts have expressed. Societies needs to re- cultivate and foster, the kind of enlightened spiritually inspired wisdoms and strategies that complement vital respect for ecosystems, along with related areas of social justice. Meanwhile, it is apparent that neo-conservatives prevail over a Global Warming that neither has anything to do with reverence for the Bible, nor respect for any form of science, that does not immediately serve their apparent desire to fulfill their sought "New World Order". Source:The Canadian National Newspaper tinyurl.com/phry4
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 7, 2006 14:08:49 GMT 4
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 15, 2006 10:52:20 GMT 4
The inconvenient truth about Al GoreJune 9, 2006 LANCE NEWMAN looks beyond the image-polishing of Al Gore’s new movie--and explains what needs to be done to save the Earth.AL GORE’S new documentary An Inconvenient Truth is generating a powerful new buzz about the threat of climate change. The former vice president who was defeated in the 2000 presidential election by George Bush, Gore is re-emerging into the political spotlight with the release of this film. It’s not surprising that the movie is effective. People are understandably concerned about global warming, especially since the mainstream media has done such a good job of confusing the issue. As the film points out, 100 percent of articles in scientific journals agree that climate change is real, but 53 percent of news stories label climate change a “theory.” An Inconvenient Truth does a good job of presenting the latest scientific facts and figures. Gore does know his stuff on this issue, and the film gives hard-hitting examples of the potential consequences of inaction. For example, catastrophic melting of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice caps caused by global warming--similar to what took place recently with the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf--would cause a 20-foot rise in sea levels, flooding many of the most heavily populated urban areas of the world. Hurricane Katrina showed us what happens when several hundred thousand people are displaced by environmental disaster. What about when hundreds of millions see their cities sink into the ocean? But An Inconvenient Truth spends far too much time telling the latest version of Gore’s worn-out life story. It tries much too hard to package him as a crusader who experienced an awakening, and now sees that saving the earth is a “moral imperative.” We get far too many long shots of Gore staring seriously into a Mac laptop, or walking seriously through an airport, or sitting seriously in the backseat of a limousine.
All the time used to polish Gore’s image could have been devoted to the discussion of solutions to environmental crisis. As it is, An Inconvenient Truth only gives its last five minutes to the question of what is to be done--and it sends a confusingly mixed message.On the one hand, the movie makes the powerful suggestion that the fight to end global warming could be the next in the long line of grassroots, democratic political struggles that have changed history--the American Revolution, the Civil War to abolish slavery, the movement for women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement. But it ends by demanding that audience members reduce their personal carbon emissions by carpooling, checking tire pressure, buying low-wattage light bulbs, changing the settings on home thermostats and so on. This conclusion falls horribly flat after the film has spent so much time showing that climate change is a global problem, driven by vast forces like the oil economy and population growth.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IT SHOULD come as no surprise that the film’s conclusion is so lame. After all, Al Gore campaigned with Bill Clinton as “environmentally conscious” during the 1992 elections, and their administration then broke almost every green promise they made.
The Clinton-Gore administration handed out permits for toxic waste incinerators, opened up Western forests to logging, handed out tax breaks to oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and much, much more.One of the most glaring examples of Gore’s hypocrisy is his refusal to use his $500,000 stake in Occidental Petroleum to pressure the company to stop drilling on the sacred lands of Colombia’s Uwa tribe.
And, of course, Gore was one of the main brokers of free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT that have gutted environmental standards across the globe.So how did we get to the point where Al Gore, of all people, can try to pass himself off as an environmentalist messiah? After all, the environmental movement raised one of the most important political challenges to capitalism of the last 50 years. The movement won its biggest victories soon after the first Earth Day in 1970, when Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. After that, many environmentalists shifted their attention to the threat of nukes. They won a moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants and pressured the U.S. and the former USSR to sign non-proliferation treaties. At the same time, there was an explosion of community-based grassroots activism. The classic example is the Love Canal Parents Association, which formed when people in a community near Niagara Falls, N.Y., discovered in 1977 that their school and homes had been built on top of a half-mile long, earth-covered canal filled with 2,000 tons of toxic chemical and nuclear wastes. The struggle forced the federal government to build them a new town. But during the Reagan-Bush years, the environmental movement went on the defensive. And when Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office in 1992, most of the movement’s key activists thought it was time to come in from the cold. They took Gore at his word when he promised to be the “environmental vice president,” so they moved to D.C. and got jobs as lobbyists. In other words, the environmental movement did what so many other social movements have done in the last 150 years. It beached itself on the Democratic Party and died.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RIGHT NOW, we have the technology to generate all the clean electricity we need and to drastically reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that drive global warming. Photovoltaic cells cost about 15 percent of what they did 20 years ago. Solar energy now costs between 25 and 35 cents per kilowatt hour, depending on the application and the size of the system. Electricity bought at retail off the existing grid costs from 5 to 35 cents per kilowatt hour, depending on where you live.With real investment in research and development, reliable solar energy could be cheaper than traditional sources. So what keeps alternative energy sources from being developed? Capitalism is a system based on competition for profit. In order for a company to survive, it has to make its product--a car or a gallon of gas or a kilowatt hour of electricity--at the lowest cost possible. If it can be undersold, it will go out of business in a hurry. When companies need to bring down the cost of production, the environment is one of their first targets. It costs money to dispose of byproducts of production or install smokestack scrubbers. It’s much cheaper to pour toxic waste into the nearest river. Even CEOs who think of themselves as nature-lovers have to do what it takes to compete.But it’s not just that the system forces individual companies to be environmentally destructive. Capitalism as a whole is like a cancer.In order to keep the profits rolling in, corporations have to grow, which means that the entire economy has to grow for the system as a whole to survive. At a 3 percent rate of economic growth, the economy will be 16 times bigger a century from now. In two centuries, it will be 250 times bigger, and in three centuries, 4,000 times bigger. The bigger it gets, the more of the planet it destroys. Saving the planet will take changing the way our society does business. We have to do more than challenge corporate power; we need to get rid of capitalism altogether. What force in society has not only the motive to shut down the multinationals and overthrow capitalism, but the potential power to do it as well? Workers suffer the most under the current system, not only from poverty and exploitation, but also from environmental damage. Workers get toxic air and sick buildings, while Bill Gates has a $100 million, 40,000 square-foot “ecology” mansion on Puget Sound that filters everything including the light. Working-class soldiers get Gulf War Syndrome, while the war-mongering politicians drink bottled water for $5 a quart.Workers not only have good reasons to fight back, they also have to power to shake the system to its foundations. One of the most important things about the global justice movement was that it showed that organized labor and environmentalists can forge real alliances.During the 1999 Battle of Seattle, thousands of rank-and-file Teamsters defied their union leaders and marched into clouds of tear gas to defend environmental activists who were being attacked by cops as they protested a summit of the World Trade Organization. In Miami, in November 2003, 20,000 AFL-CIO unionists joined thousands of environmentalists to protest the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit. More than once, when the police tried to harass student environmental activists, they were surrounded by crowds of steelworkers who forced them to back off. That’s just a glimpse of the kind of power that can take on the bosses and their system--that can really put ExxonMobil, Halliburton and the rest of the corporations out of business. And that’s what we need to do if we really want to save the Earth. Source: tinyurl.com/jlxdc
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 6, 2006 17:32:11 GMT 4
Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'An Inconvenient Spoof'By JAKE TAPPER AND MAX CULHANE, ABCNews.com (Aug. 5) -- A tiny little movie making fun of Al Gore, supposedly made by an amateur filmmaker, recently appeared on the popular Web site YouTube.com.At first blush, "An Inconvenient Spoof" seemed like a scrappy little homemade film poking fun at Gore and his anti-global warming crusade. In the movie, Gore is seen boring an army of penguins with his lecture and blaming global warming for everything, including Lindsay Lohan's thinness. But when the Wall Street Journal tried to find the guy who posted this film — listed on YouTube as a 29-year-old — they found the movie didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement. The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.
Exxon denies knowing anything about the film, and DCI says, "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients."Distrust of Mainstream MediaMedia ethicists say that if DCI is behind "An Inconvenient Spoof," they should fess up. "Without the disclosure, it's really ethically questionable," said Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Another question is why would this movie be done in a seemingly unprofessional way, to be shown alongside YouTube's mostly amateur videos, which feature lip-synching, odd performances and funny satires? "They want it to look like this came from someone who really believes this, who is really critical of Al Gore and global warming," Farsetta said.Ana Marie Cox, the Washington editor of Time.com, said Americans have come to distrust the mainstream media. "They're more likely to believe something that comes straight from the horse's mouth," Cox said. Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called "Astroturf."Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films. "People will become more savvy, and then the people who are making the fake videos will become more savvy about how to cover it up," Cox said. So next time you're reading something on the Internet from a "real person" pushing a movie or defending an actor's alcohol-fueled rant — be wary. That real person might actually be a hired gun, selling you an idea through deception. 8/05/06 Copyright SOURCE:articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001Al Gore's Penguin Armyyoutube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 15, 2006 8:35:33 GMT 4
Out on a Ledge If global warming is an emergency, then let's act like itBy Mike Tidwell 14 Nov 2006 On a recent Monday morning, at exactly 8 a.m., a dozen global-warming activists converged in Washington, D.C., at the main entrance to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Two activists dressed as window washers -- painter's hats on, squeegees in hand -- carried a 32-foot extension ladder to the building's main entrance. They ascended the ladder and secured themselves atop a narrow ledge 25 feet above the ground. Within seconds they had unfurled a large banner that read: "Bush: Let NOAA Tell the Truth!" [1. See story below]On the ground, the ladder disappeared while dozens more protesters emerged with placards saying things like "Global Warming = Stronger Hurricanes!" The entrance to a major federal agency, one whose politically appointed leadership has been widely condemned for suppressing scientific climate reports, was effectively occupied. For the rest of the day, the occupation was major news in the nation's capital. The main NPR station broadcast hourly live updates of the ensuing standoff with police, repeating the activists' call for open science and clean energy. A Fox News helicopter hovered overhead, filming everything. And more than 150 newspapers picked up the Associated Press story about this day of principled activism in the face of politicized science. As director of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, I was one of the chief organizers of this event and played the role of main negotiator with the dozens of police and Homeland Security officials who eventually arrived to try to coax the activists off the ledge. My motivation for acting was simple. Those of us within the emerging global-warming movement in America routinely use the words "emergency" and "crisis" and "impending catastrophe" to describe -- accurately -- the runaway heating now afflicting our planet. Wildfires [2.] are off the charts. The Greenland ice sheet is imploding. Hurricanes are unrecognizable in their fury. And NASA's James Hansen says we have less than 10 years to profoundly alter our use of fossil fuels. "Emergency, crisis, catastrophe," we say. But do our actions, as activists and policy advocates, reflect our words? Does our daily work, as fine and passionate as it is, reflect the desperate reality as we see it? The answer, I submit, is a resounding "no!" I speak from experience. For the past five years, while gasping at the near-weekly scientific reports of rapid climate demise, I've worked almost nonstop promoting profoundly modest clean-energy policies in my region. These include a policy mandating that 7 percent of Maryland's electricity come from clean sources. I've worked on a "clean cars" campaign in D.C. that affects only 0.2 percent of U.S. automobiles. Even these baby steps have come after bruising, intense political battles. And like similar state and regional laws heroically won across the country, the bills in my region are phased in over many years -- time we positively don't have. The Democrats have retaken Congress, but the best we can probably hope for -- thanks to still-lagging public awareness and the diluting influence of Detroit and ExxonMobil -- is global-warming legislation that kicks in with any force about the year Hansen says it will already be too late for the planet. So, by itself, the legislative/policy fight will not -- and does not promise to -- work in time to solve the "emergency." What, then, is missing? What more should we be doing to bring our actions in line with the crisis? The answer, I believe, is to stop using bold adjectives and dramatic language in voices that are routinely calm and polite. The answer is to start shouting passionately at the tops of our lungs. The answer is to shut down the entrances to federal buildings and stage noisy campus sit-ins and peacefully "display" tons of raw coal on the U.S. Capitol lawn. We need this not because getting locked up is a justified ego trip, allowing us to self-righteously shame America with the TV cameras rolling. We need it because, if done in a spirit of love and justice, it's our only hope on a terrifyingly tight deadline. It's also the only way previous social movements have been made whole and therefore successful. While the NAACP was working the courts, Martin Luther King Jr. was on the street boycotting buses. While anti-Vietnam War legislators were holding hearings in Congress, men and women of service age were putting daisies in rifle barrels. Big change requires both legislative action and determined public protest. With the climate movement, we have lots of legislative action and almost no feet on the street. It's one of our biggest problems. Let me be clear: I'm not saying the current battles for small legislative gains in scattered cities, states, and -- soon -- Congress, should be abandoned. These are vitally important warm-up steps for the sprint just ahead of us. I'm just saying that, with the enormity of the threat at hand and the paucity of time, we'll never get running fast enough with these steps alone. We've got to add this other, time-honored dimension of creative protest to our tool kit of actions right now, and in a major way. There's simply no way around it. Which is why several dozen of us worked together to shut down the NOAA entrance for several hours that Monday morning. Our goal, at least for that day, was to draw broader public attention to the suppression of climate science. Our goal was also to say to activists everywhere in the growing grassroots climate movement: "Come on in. The water's fine. We can and must do this." By midday, our protest began drawing to a close. Paul Burman, 23, and Ted Glick, 57 -- both bold, nonviolent climate heroes -- were taken off the ledge by police in a cherry-picker after frustrating authorities all morning and displaying that banner to millions of people via radio, TV, the internet, and newspapers: "Let NOAA Tell the Truth!" The men were arrested, charged with three misdemeanors each, and released on their own recognizance. One charge, "reckless endangerment" of themselves and others, seemed particularly misdirected, given that George Bush and his NOAA cronies are recklessly endangering 6.2 billion people with an impending global climate collapse. But unless a critical mass of us within the climate movement begins shouting out our dissent while sitting down in entrances or standing up in the streets, future generations may level the same charge at us: Despite knowing the truth, despite knowing the danger, they went only halfway, and so the danger came in full and engulfed us. Mike Tidwell is director of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network based in Takoma Park, Md. Source:www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/11/13/tidwell/index.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Open and Shut Up Case Agencies investigate claims of muzzling by Bush administration Has the Bush administration tried to suppress climate-change research? We'd tell you, but there's a guy in a trench coat watching us type. Maybe inspectors general at NASA and the Commerce Department will have better luck as they investigate claims that climate scientists were muzzled by political appointees at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The inquiry, prompted by a request from 14 Democratic senators, is "going to shake up the administration, because it will uncover internal documents and agency correspondence that may expose widespread misconduct," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). "Taxpayers do not fund scientific research so that the Bush White House can alter it." A spokesflack for the White House Council on Environmental Quality called the claims of interference "false," saying with a straight face, "We have in place the most transparent system of science reporting." The results of the probe should be available early next year. straight to the source: The Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin, 02 Nov 2006 straight to the source: The Star-Ledger, Kitta MacPherson, 02 Nov 2006 straight to the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Associated Press, John Heilprin, 01 Nov 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Blazing Addles What climate scientists have learned from Western wildfiresBy Josh McDaniel 23 Oct 2006 Many wildland firefighters carry an instrument called a sling psychrometer. It consists of two encased thermometers, and is swung above the head on a short rope -- making the firefighters appear not unlike David readying to slay Goliath. The instrument gives a quick field reading of relative humidity, one of the most important factors in predicting what a wildfire is going to do. Quick drops in relative humidity are a sure signal that the air is getting drier and that a fire is about to turn ugly. Wildland firefighters know weather. They study weather reports and projections. They track fronts moving across the continent. Just like you, they watch The Weather Channel. But firefighters also have to understand the sky. They have to be aware of wind, and to understand wind they have to recognize how different cloud formations indicate coming changes. The last thing a firefighter wants is to be caught on the business end of an unforeseen wind change. So when wildland firefighters talk about climate change, it's good to listen. They have been paying attention. Toby Richards, a fire management officer for New Mexico's Gila National Forest, realized that something was changing in climate patterns when he had to check on a fire a few years back that had ignited in mid-winter above 9,000 feet. "We went up to a lookout and watched this fire burning in an area that was normally under six feet of snow," he remembers. "Every once in a while you will get a lightning strike up that high that burns a tree or two in the winter, but this fire grew to a hundred acres." Richards is not alone in observing changes in western wildfire patterns. Firefighters and fire scientists across the West have been noting for years that the fire season is getting longer, fires are growing larger, and many wildfires are starting to behave in ways that are considered unusual. Unusual Weather We're Having, Ain't It?About six years ago, climate scientist Anthony Westerling and a group of researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Arizona began to systematically examine the links between increasingly severe fire seasons and climate in the West. Most recently, Westerling and his fellow researchers pored over records from 1,166 large wildfires in the West from 1970 to 2003, tracking when fires ignited, how long they burned, and how much area they covered. They also gathered a wide variety of data from the region over the same time period on stream flow, temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, the timing of spring, and vegetation dryness. "The trick was figuring out how to put all of the data together for analysis in just the right way," Westerling says. "It looks straightforward after the fact, but it wasn't so simple, and that is why it had not been done before." When they had finished, the group was able to form a broad picture of the primary factors driving western wildfires. Their results were published in Science in August. According to the team, the West has gotten hotter over the last couple of decades, with average spring and summer temperatures measuring nearly one degree Celsius (~1.8 °F) higher between 1987 and 2003 than during the previous 17 years. Those warmer temperatures melted the snowpack one to four weeks earlier in the spring, leaving western forests drier and primed for fire earlier in the year. Westerling says the earlier snowmelt provides a "tipping point" for wildfire activity. "In years when the snow melt is late in places like the mid-elevation forests of the northern Rockies, it never really dries out, and there are seldom any large wildfires," he says. "Conversely, in the early melt years, the soils and vegetation dry out earlier, and are dry for longer. That is when most of the forest wildfires occur." The researchers found that a big jump in wildfire activity occurred in the mid-1980s -- almost seven times more forested federal land burned between 1987 and 2003 than in the previous 17 years. Over the entire region, the length of the wildfire season increased by 78 days from 1970 to 2003. The season has grown more intense as well, with fires taking an average of only 7.5 days to control from 1970 to 1986, compared to an average of 37.1 days from 1987 to 2003. While those trends are dramatic, they are not surprising to wildfire professionals. Tom Zimmerman, director of fire and aviation management for the Southwest division of the U.S. Forest Service, says, "Fire season now doesn't end until it snows. We used to count on season-ending rains in August or September. Now we just hope for season-slowing rains." Richards agrees, and points to the May 2000 Cerro Grande Fire, a 900-acre controlled burn that escaped and turned into a nearly 48,000-acre monster near Los Alamos, N.M., as an example of a disastrous wildfire occurring outside of the normal season. "Cerro Grande was a springtime controlled burn, ignited at the right time and under the right conditions," he says. "It should have just been a slow-moving ground fire, but it turned into a fast-moving fire that raced through the crowns of trees. It carried on like a fire that was lit in July." Wildfires are raging -- why isn't concern about climate change?So we know the West is warming up, and those warmer temperatures are triggering earlier, longer, and more intense fire seasons. The question naturally arises: is global warming driving all of this? Fuels and the FutureTo answer that question, we turn to Tom Swetnam, the director of the University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and a coauthor of the Science paper. For the past two decades, Swetnam has been examining the fire scars nested within tree rings of long-lived species across the West, such as ponderosa pine, juniper, pinyon pine, and sequoia. By precisely dating each fire recorded within the rings, Swetnam has been able to reconstruct periods of increased regional fire activity going back to the 18th century. Using climate data from the same period, he has been able to show the connection between severe wildfire seasons that appear in the historical record and El Niño and La Niña climate patterns. The wet years of El Niño encourage growth in forests and vegetation, while the following dry La Niña periods turn the forests into a tinderbox. Could it be that the present ratcheting up in wildfire activity is just part of that long-term pattern, and not attributable to climate change? "It is possible. El Niño and La Niña cycles are important," says Swetnam. "However, the size and scale of the fires we have experienced over the last few years are orders of magnitude greater than anything from the past century. We are getting reports from the field of extreme fire behavior. In my scientific judgment, there is a link between human-caused global warming and wildfires, but we do not have the evidence to prove that yet. Within the scope of our study we can say that the West has gotten warmer and that has led to more wildfires regionally. Other research is being done on causation." Swetnam says that before he worked on this latest research, he was skeptical that climate was driving the latest increase in fire activity. He thought the main drivers were forest conditions -- the large amount of fuels that had built up in western forests after decades of fire suppression and exclusion. In other words, Smokey Bear did his job a little too well. We have just been putting out too many fires. Richards and Zimmerman confirm that decades' worth of downed fuels make for trouble. But like most people in the field, they realize that both climate and management play a role, each varying in importance depending on where you are. "The fuels management story is very important in certain sub-regions, but the areas most affected by management are not generating the biggest share of the increase in wildfire," Westerling says. "The biggest share of the increase occurred in mid-elevation forests in the northern Rockies where fire activity was least affected by past management. Even in a place like the Southwest, where past management is very important, it is still the case that the area burned in early snowmelt years is more than two and half times as much as the area burned in late snowmelt years." While the study points to a dark future for forests in the West, the researchers are not so fatalistic. There is still time to do something about it. "The public and policy-makers need to wake up to the great risks facing our ecosystems and human communities," says Swetnam. "We are all going to have to learn to live with fire and reintroduce it into our ecosystems as prescribed fire or natural fire outside of wilderness." Some media reports regarding the study have played up the climate versus management argument, but the researchers say that the reception from land managers and firefighters has been mostly positive. In fact, many firefighters and land managers are glad that someone has been able to systematically document an idea and argument that has been floating around the firefighting camp for years. "On the one hand, there is a feeling of vindication, to see someone document what they have had a gut feeling about already," says Westerling. "On the other hand, there is some apprehension about what comes next. They know they are the ones who are going to be expected to take care of any problems in our public forests, and this is one they can't solve on their own." Josh McDaniel is a freelance writer living in Grand Junction, Colorado. He is editor of Advances in Fire Practice.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 24, 2006 13:57:10 GMT 4
Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas.Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports Published: 24 December 2006 Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true. As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities. Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented. It has been officially recorded in a six-year study of the Sunderbans by researchers at Calcutta's Jadavpur University. So remote is the island that the researchers first learned of its submergence, and that of an uninhabited neighbouring island, Suparibhanga, when they saw they had vanished from satellite pictures. Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university's School of Oceanographic Studies, says "it is only a matter of some years" before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta. The area's 400 tigers are also in danger. Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction. Human cost of global warming: Rising seas will soon make 70,000 people homeless Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas. Source: news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also See:Oceans may rise over 4 1/2 feet by 2100By Alister Doyle Dec 14, 2006 OSLO (Reuters) - The world's oceans may rise up to 140 cms (4 ft 7 in) by 2100 due to global warming, a faster than expected increase that could threaten low-lying coasts from Florida to Bangladesh, a researcher said on Thursday. "The possibility of a faster sea level rise needs to be considered when planning adaptation measures such as coastal defenses," Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research wrote in the journal Science. His study, based on air temperatures and past sea level changes rather than computer models, suggested seas could rise by 50-140 cms by 2100, well above the 9-88 cms projected by the scientific panel that advises the United Nations. A rise of one meter might swamp low-lying Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, flood large areas of Bangladesh or Florida and threaten cities from New York to Buenos Aires. "The computer models underestimate the sea level rise that has already occurred," Rahmstorf told Reuters of a rise of about 20 cms since 1900. "There are aspects of the physics we don't understand very well." Sea level changes hinge on poorly understood factors such as the pace of the melt of glaciers and of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Water also expands as it gets warmer but the rate of penetration of heat to the depths is uncertain. "My main conclusion is not that my forecast is better but that the uncertainty is much larger because of the different results you get with reasonable methods," he said. Almost all climate scientists reckon the world is warming because of emissions of greenhouse gases from human use of fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars. Rising temperatures could bring more droughts, floods and heatwaves.Read the Rest:news.yahoo.com/s/nm/climate_oceans_dc------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Give us non-polluting energy - starting nowAnatole Kaletsky - November 23, 2006 The investment in fighting climate change is pathetically low.November 2006 promises to be a momentous month in the history of human influence on the earth's climate. First there was the Stern report, which presented the first fully coherent economic analysis of climate change, challenging the wilful misrepresentation of reality on both sides of this debate. Then came the US election, which inflicted a crushing defeat on the one important global leader who persisted in denying the importance of climate change. Then, last Tuesday came an even more significant, though far less publicised, event: the signature in Paris of a ¤10 billion international agreement to build the world's first nuclear fusion reactor at Cadarache, in the South of France. The construction of this international thermonuclear experimental reactor, which should take about ten years to complete, could pave the way to commercial availability of electricity from nuclear fusion by around 2045, according to the Iter management. Since fusion, which is the energy principle of the sun and of the hydrogen bomb, requires no significant quantities of raw materials apart from water and produces no serious problems of pollution, success of the Iter programme would, in theory, provide the world with unlimited amounts of energy and resolve the problem of global warming once and for all. Does this mean that we can all now relax and just wait for the boffins to deliver their miracle cures? Of course not. First, because the energy released by fusion is so enormous that many of the scientists involved put the probability of controlling and harnessing this process successfully no higher than 50 per cent. Secondly, because by the middle of the century, when the first commercial fusion reactors may be in action, the world will have suffered serious climate changes and this would become catastrophically irreversible if by then the gamble on fusion did not deliver results. For at least another generation, therefore, we must economise on energy and look for other non-polluting sources. But can these objectives be achieved without reducing economic growth or accepting big changes to affluent lifestyles? The answer, to the dismay of anti-capitalist environmental puritans, is almost certainly "yes". What the Stern report showed, and the Iter programme could inspirationally remind us, is that the rational response to global warming is not to find ways of stifling economic growth or curbing travel. It is to accelerate technological advance. The first point to understand is that global warming is caused mainly by electricity generation, not transport - and especially not air transport, which now seems the main obsession of environmental campaigners. Aircraft contribute just 2 per cent of greenhouse gases and will account for a maximum of 6 per cent by the middle of the century, even on ambitious projections of airline growth. Cars are more important, but they only produce around 12 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. And while there will certainly be rapid car growth in China, this could be easily offset by fuel economies. For example, if American cars delivered the same fuel economy as European ones, this would eliminate pollution more than equivalent to all the cars in China without anyone having to drive less at all. In any case, the environmental impact of China's drivers will be far outweighed in the coming decades by the country's electricity programme, which will add power stations equivalent to Britain's entire electricity output every two years, mainly fuelled by highly polluting coal. India will soon be doing the same. The top priority should therefore be to develop less-polluting methods of power generation, which the Chinese and Indians would find preferable to burning coal. In an ideal world, a base-load of continuous electricity - somewhere between 40 to 60 per cent of total supplies - would come from large centralised zero-carbon power stations, either nuclear or more expensive "clean coal" technologies that extract carbon dioxide and then "sequestrate" it deep underground. The rest would be supplied by non-polluting sources such as wind and solar power, supplemented by small amounts of carbon-emitting gas generators, preferably in small local turbines, widely distributed across cities, villages and even individual buildings. But how could these changes be achieved? To answer this we must ask another question: why is it that the Iter fusion programme has only just started, given that it was mooted more than 20 years ago, at the Reagan-Gorbachev summit in 1985? The answer is surprisingly simple: lack of interest and money. The fact is that, despite all the public ballyhoo about global warming, both governments and private businesses, have been drastically reducing their investment in energy research over the past 20 years. The US Federal Government, for example, has halved its energy research and development spending and now spends $5 billion a year on energy research and development. The rest of the world's governments between them spend about the same amount. This is one-fourteenth of the US Government's military research spending and one sixth of its spending on medical R&D. The disparity is even greater in the private sector. Power generation companies on average spend just 0.5 per cent of turnover on R&D, compared with 3 per cent in the motor industry, 8 per cent in electronics and 15 per cent in pharmaceuticals. The British Government has proudly announced the creation of a new Energy Technology Institute, funded with £50 million a year of public money, but this is a tiny figure, given the importance of global warming and the vastly greater amounts spent by both public and private sectors in other fields of research. What these disparities suggest is a monumental case of market failure: markets are simply not sending the right price signals to motivate economic activity, investment and innovation in energy technology on the scale now required. The reasons for this market failure were presented in the Stern report: very long lead times in power generation projects; the collapse of oil prices in the mid-1980s; and the fickleness of political fashions on nuclear power. But whatever the causes of these market failures the implication is clear. Research, development and deployment of new non-polluting energy sources require and deserve far greater levels of public support. If environmentalists really cared about global warming, they would stop demonstrating against nuclear power stations, motorways and airport expansion and start demanding serious government commitments to energy research. From: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2466603,00.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Related articles:
Concern over Europe 'snow crisis' (Dec 17, 2006) news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6185345.stmUnseasonably warm conditions across Europe are being greeted with a mixture of disbelief and despair by those who normally rely on cold winters. - Ski resorts across the European Alps are becoming increasingly worried as current bad snow conditions threaten the all important Christmas holiday period.This autumn has been one of the worst on record with high temperatures and little snowfall.Many resorts have had to postpone their openings and the main ski races have been cancelled because of a lack of snow. (...) Temperatures in Moscow sank to minus 29C this time last yearNobody knows what to make of it. This is the middle of December in a country known for the severity of its winters.There's not a snowflake to be seen. Red Square should be covered in white by now. It's not. Its cobblestones are as stubbornly damp and grey as the skies overhead.There would normally be ice on the Moskva River. There's none."It's just fantasy!" is the way the weather forecast began on one of Moscow's radio stations earlier this week. The announcer's voice betrayed a mixture of disbelief and despair.That's because Russians are proud of their cold winters. CLIP Antarctic Ice Core Reveals Climate Link with Greenland (November 13, 2006) www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448089,00.htm The ice in the Antarctic is giving German scientists a unique glimpse of the earth's climate history. They have discovered evidence of a global temperature seesaw, connecting the two hemispheres. (...) His main concern was with the evidence of unusual climate change Greenland ice cores had revealed a few years ago. Temperatures during the last Ice Age, the cores revealed, had swung repeatedly up and down -- "by more than 10 degrees within a few decades," Fischer explains.Scientists have long wondered if these enormous swings in temperature were only a regional phenomenon. This latest research now shows that they weren't. The 2,774 meter-long ice core the EPICA team finished extracting out of the Antarctic ice in February reveals a mirror image of the temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere. "When it was warm in the north, the ocean surrounding Antarctica cooled down," says Fischer. "And vice versa: the Southern Hemisphere warmed up when it got colder in the north."(...) And the ice core contained another surprise for the researchers. The massive ice masses of the Antarctic are a lot less stable than had been thought up to now. When the team's drillmaster Frank Wilhelms bored deeper into the rock, water surged into the hole. "There is a bubbling brook underneath the ice crust," he reports.The massive pressure of 250 bar is apparently causing the ice to melt -- even at the temperature of minus 2 degrees Celsius (28.4 degrees Fahrenheit). "We would have to assume that a considerable part of the Antarctic interior ice lies on top of this watery layer," the AWI scientist concludes. CLIP Warming Oceans Less Hospitable for Plant Life (December 7, 2006) www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6591611The ocean has been getting bluer, according to a study published in the journal Nature. But that's not really good news for the planet. It means that the plants that give the ocean its green tint aren't doing well. Scientists say that's because the ocean has been getting warmer. Fog Raises Air Pollution Levels in Chinese Cities (December 13, 2006) www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6618314Thick fog has rolled into the north and northeast of China in the last couple of days, raising air pollution levels to near "hazardous" conditions in Shanghai, Beijing and other population centers. Australian bushfires leave grisly trail of environmental damage (Dec 17, 2006) news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061217/wl_afp/australiafiresanimalsenvironment_061217103018SYDNEY (AFP) - Tens of thousands of iconic Australian creatures including koalas and kangaroos may have died in fires that swept through vast tracts of southern Australia this week, environmentalists say. The blazes have devastated thousands of hectares, razed clusters of homes and claimed one life since they began earlier this month. But they will also leave a significant environmental legacy because of their impact on flora and fauna, according to Wildlife Victoria spokeswoman Sandy Fernee. "I think we've already lost tens of thousands of animals when you consider how widespread the fires are," she told AFP. The wildfires, caused by lightning strikes in some areas and arson in others, have raged in the southern states of Victoria and Tasmania as well as New South Wales and Western Australia for two weeks. Victoria is the worst affected, with the scorched area stretching over more than 5,000 square kilometres (2,000 square miles), equivalent to twice the size of Luxembourg. Fernee said volunteers visiting Victorian firegrounds this weekend were expecting to see "Pompeii-like" scenes of burned and charred animal remains. "It's very grim. A lot of what we come across are animals we can't even recognise. It's just a pile of ashes," she said."It's rare that we find something we can help. Mostly we come across dead animals that are badly burned that we have to euthanise." While koala, kangaroo and wallaby populations are expected to have been hit, smaller animals such as possums, bats, birds, lizards and snakes are thought to have perished in greater numbers because they are generally too slow to outrun a fire, she said. CLIP Australian Fires Kill Thousands of Native Animalswww.truthout.org/issues_06/121906EB.shtmlHundreds of thousands of native Australian animals such as koalas and kangaroos have been killed in bushfires that have burnt across southeast Australia in the past two weeks. The bushfires, which are still burning in three eastern states, have been so big and intense that wildlife officials fear some species may become extinct as the fires destroy large swathes of animal habitats. FACTBOX - Key Facts about Australia's Bushfireswww.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39496/story.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 7, 2007 18:52:04 GMT 4
March in January! Or Is It Mayday? It's Nice Out There, But Global Warming Dampens the FunBy Joel Achenbach Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, January 7, 2007; Page D01 Never has good weather felt so bad. Never have flowers inspired so much fear. Never has the warm caress of a sunbeam seemed so ominous. The weather is sublime, it's glorious, it's the end of the world. January is the new March. The daffodils are busting out everywhere. It's porch weather. Put on a T-shirt and shorts, fire up the grill, blast "Rastaman Vibration" into the back yard. Everyone out for volleyball! The normal high for this time of year is 43 degrees; yesterday's high at Reagan National was a record-breaking 73. And yet it's all a guilty pleasure. Weather is both a physical and a psychological phenomenon. Meteorology, meet eschatology. We've read the articles, we've seen the Gore movie, we've calculated our carbon footprint, and we're just not intellectually capable anymore of fully enjoying warm winter weather. Just ain't right. Ain't natural. Cherry blossoms during the NFL playoffs? Run for your lives. "Amazing, but it makes me think we might not be here too much longer, because of global warming," said Laura Ingoldsby, a grad student getting ready for a jog on the towpath at Fletcher's Boathouse. "I think it's a bit scary. It's too warm," said Ellie Motazedi of Bethesda as she paused during a bike ride. "Days like this, I worry about global warming, and we're not doing anything about it," said Coby Dolan, an attorney basking in the sunshine on the porch of the clubhouse at the Hains Point golf course. Let the record reflect that he did not appear to be suffering. At the U.S. National Arboretum, horticulturist Scott Aker has been keeping an eye on a Magnolia zenii: "The buds are ready to pop." They mow the meadows in winter when the ground freezes solid, but it's still soft out there. Last year's petunias are still going strong in Aker's yard -- and there's no serious winter in sight. Bulletin: A Washington Post editor nearly drove into a black bear Friday night in Prince William County. Official word from the authorities: "Oh yeah, it's so warm, they can't hibernate." Bulletin: British scientists say there is a 60 percent chance that 2007 will be the warmest year on record. Bulletin: Ski resorts are struggling to open in the Alps. Bulletin: Palm trees are growing around a tiki bar in Antarctica. So maybe we made up the last one. Still, we don't need anyone to tell us that some computer model in some climatologist's office is showing that a doubling of atmospheric carbon will lead over the next century to approximately 3 degrees Celsius warming in the average surface temperature of the planet, etc. Because we've been outside. We can detect climate change epidermically. What if those climate models are wrong, because they're insufficiently dire? Everyone's suddenly shifting from models to observations. Look: Big ice shelf breaking off an Arctic island. Look: Greenland melting faster than the Wicked Witch of the West. Listen: Scary quotes from experts."Is it really a broadly based area that's seeing particular change? The answer is yes," says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "From Europe, the East Coast, north to the Arctic and across to Siberia, there's a very large swath of the Northern Hemisphere for the months of September, October and November that [were] exceedingly warm . . . "So it's bad. Except for one thing. What you might call, at the moment, the Denver factor. Denver got four feet of snow in December. The third big storm blew in Friday. Snowdrifts of 10 feet! An automobile-snuffing avalanche in a mountain pass west of town! In Denver, January is still January. Because what we are experiencing and what Denver is experiencing are both part of a thing called weather, not climate. Climate change is real, but it's a background phenomenon, the cicada-song white noise on the horror-movie soundtrack, distinct from the thuds and screams and moans of specific weather events. "It's very dangerous to blame climate for weather," says Richard Alley, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University. But he doesn't let climate change off the hook when discussing our warm winter. "No, we didn't cause it, but we made it more likely," he concludes. It's like rolling loaded dice in a craps game. But Dennis Feltgen, a National Weather Service meteorologist, says climate change isn't the culprit. It's El Ni?o. Warm water in the tropical Pacific, changed wind patterns, lots of balmy air blowing our way from the southern United States. "We're in an El Ni?o, which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming," Feltgen says. "It keeps a lot of the cold air locked up in Canada, and makes the West Coast of the United States stormy, which we've seen, and makes the southern one-third of the country wetter than normal." And for some, El Ni?o is dandy. "Keeps the hurricanes away and the cold winter away. I'm all for it," said Colin Offner, golfing happily at Hains Point. [!!!! Idiot; the natural cold weather of winter kills off many disease causing bacteria and viruses and sets up a natural protective cycle provided by nature. The warmer weather isn't killing off all the fleas either, pet lovers...Michelle]Bulletin: Cooler weather is imminent. The weather will be almost normal, briefly, before all hell breaks loose again. Source: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/06/AR2007010601215.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 71 degrees in New York in January:RECORD EVENT REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE UPTON NY 510 PM EST SAT JAN 06 2007 ...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE SET AT KENNEDY... A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 71 DEGREES WAS SET AT KENNEDY TODAY AT 136 PM. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 57 SET IN 1998. THIS BREAKS THE ALL TIME HIGH TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY AT KENNEDY OF 69 DEGREES SET BACK ON JANUARY 26TH 1950. Source: twister.sbs.ohio-state.edu/text/severe/records/07010622.KOKX
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 29, 2007 16:13:48 GMT 4
US urges scientists to block out sunThe powers that be in the US are unbelievable! Politicians and bureaucrats dragged their feet for how many years, hoping they wouldn't have to take drastic action. What did they hope for; some undiscovered property of the global climate system to absorb or correct our input of greenhouse gases?! Global warming is from our binge of fossil fuel burning, deforestation [still eating beef? still encouraging/supporting urban sprawl...shopping at malls?], and depletion of stratospheric ozone from our use of chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals. Global population and food demands are also a key figure in all of this. I can see it now: Since so many are becoming hep to what the PTBs are doing to us [making us ill and killing us off] with the spraying of Chemtrails [which also form cloud cover], they'll begin to tell us that the Chemtrails are for our safety, all the while knocking off huge portions of the population, and getting rid of what Henry Kissinger labeled as, "Useless food eaters." We're vermin to the PTBs...never forget that.....Michelle US urges scientists to block out sunDavid Adam and Liz Minchin January 29, 2007 US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday). The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment. The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered." Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting". It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world. But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change. The panel's draft report shows projections for average global temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new range of one to 6.3 degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8 degrees. Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree rise by the end of the century. "Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … we cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette with a Luger." Source: tinyurl.com/2sa8jd
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 1, 2007 9:45:33 GMT 4
Lawmakers hear of interference in global warming scienceSure, we can all understand this type of thinking from Bush: "Let's see... death of the planet.....or....continued profits for the fossil fuels industry and its stockholders....Tough call":President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.I also couldn't help but notice statements made by big ticket Presidential contenders; great publicity for them, global warming and all. How come we have to wait for them to get get off their political haunches and speak out only before primaries and elections? Would YOU wait to address the death of the global biosphere until the hour to halt or reversal is nearly gone; wait only for the timing of a politically poised moment to enhance your career?.....MichelleLawmakers hear of interference in global warming sciencePOSTED: 4:01 a.m. EST, January 31, 2007 Story Highlights•House Chairman: Officials mislead by "injecting doubt" into climate science • Presidential contenders expound on subject at Senate hearing • Advocacy groups' survey show many scientists subjected to political pressure • Sens. McCain, Obama to express views on global warming at hearing WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress. The hearing focused on allegations White House officials for years have micromanaged the government's climate programs and have closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public. "It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate. ( Watch White House changes to climate reports: www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2007/01/30/koppel.environment.message.cnn ) Climate change also was a leading topic in the Senate, where presidential contenders for 2008 lined up at a hearing called by Sen. Barbara Boxer. They expounded -- and at times tried to outdo each other -- on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases. "This is a problem whose time has come," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, proclaimed. "This is an issue over the years whose time has come," echoed Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said "for decades far too many have ignored the warning" about climate change. "Will we look back at today and say this was the moment we took a stand?" [sorry, Senators, the time has come and gone! I am curious, have these Senators put any commitment behind global warming earlier in their careers?...MZ]At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media. ( Watch what a major new report concludes: www.cnn.com/video/player/detect.exclude.html?url=/video/us/2007/01/30/snow.global.warming.cnn ) The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee. Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report. Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased. Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House.'Science and politics are intermixed'Some Republican members of the committee questioned whether science and politics ever can be kept separate. "I am no climate-change denier," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the committee, but he questioned whether "the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized." "The mere convergence of politics and science does not itself denote interference," said Davis. Administration officials were not called to testify. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change. President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly. Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said "the reality is that science and politics are intermixed." Pielke maintained that "scientific cherry picking" can be found on both sides of the climate debate. He took a swipe at the background memorandum Waxman had distributed and maintained that it exaggerated the scientific consensus over the impact of climate change on hurricanes. Waxman and Davis agreed the administration had not been forthcoming in providing documents to the committee that would shed additional light on allegations of political interference in climate science. "We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," said Waxman, adding that he is "not trying to obtain state secrets."At Boxer's Senate hearing, her predecessor as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, had his own view of the science.There is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing global warming, declared Inhofe, who once called global warming a hoax. "We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time." [?!!!!!]"I'll put you down as skeptical," replied Boxer.Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Source:www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 11, 2007 9:30:30 GMT 4
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”So what if Al Gore threw us some bones to the idea that he was supplying us with dangerous knowledge by bringing attention to global warming? How is that people in positions of power with tons of money win the consent of the people to focus on reform instead of revolution?
Our work now toward solving global warming must be fundamental change which goes to the root causes of the problems. If we all agree that we are willing to do with less in order that we might genuinely share economic resources and power... live in a cleaner environment, then we threaten the privilege and power of a few who have it as well as the entire system that makes their privilege possible.
Think who and what Gore represents: The "ruling elites" or "ruling class," the politically active portion of the owning class. From their ranks are recruited the secretaries of state, defense and treasury, national security advisors and CIA director, and indeed, US senators, presidents and vice presidents. For the very top positions of the state, the ruling class is largely self-recruiting. That is how the privileged and powerful operate. They denounce government handouts to the poor and needy, while themselves feed shamelessly at the public trough.
Still think Gore is good, Gore is great, people like Gore are your salvation? GET REAL AND READ ON.......MichelleFor Immediate Release: February 26, 2007For Further Information, Contact: Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431 editor@tennesseepolicy.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. ### The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions. Source:www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367Note: For more background on "Inconvenient Truth," in this Light, see the previous post: Re: Global Warming « Reply #7 on Jun 15, 2006, 11:52am » The inconvenient truth about Al GoreJune 9, 2006 LANCE NEWMAN looks beyond the image-polishing of Al Gore’s new movie--and explains what needs to be done to save the Earth.
|
|