Climate Change [Archive] - Page 2

jayreynolds

04-17-2005, 05:34 AM

Re: atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the eastern New England region:

The average CO2 level has not in fact been around 380 ppmv for quite some time now. For the last two summers (2003 and 2004) atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured every 15 minutes around the clock averaged well over 380 ppmv, frequently over 400 ppmv, occasionally spiking as high as 450 ppmv and even higher.

When I checked, it was 393. Spikes mean nothing except that the wind blows sometimes, and none of these levels are anything to worry about AT ALL. CO2 isn't toxic AT ALL, and it isn't an issue at all, as the ASHRAE occupational recommendations for continual exposure levels are 700 ppm above outdoor levels "in order to minimize human odors and maintain comfort."

So there is in fact an issue.
NOPE

Otherwise the Bush administration would not be so invested in implementation of R&D for the purpose of extracting excess CO2 from power plant emissions and burying it underground or under the ocean. To say there "is no issue" at this late date is ignorant at best and just plain spurious at worst.

Those are typical boondoggle 'make-work' programs for two reasons, one of which is to extract MORE oil, the other is simply a mollification ploy.
http://www.pttc.org/tech_sum/ts_v94/ts_v94_21.htm
"DOE's Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC) will manage a large-scale, multiple-partner CO2 sequestration/ enhanced oil recovery project in DOE's Teapot Dome Field. The carbon sequestration potential from the project is projected to be at least 2.6 million tons of CO2annually with a concurrent rise in related oil production of about 30,000 Bopd, a six-fold increase over current production level."
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2004/tl_weyburn_phase2.html
"In a multinational project that includes the Department of Energy, more than 110 billion cubic feet of 95 percent pure CO2 have been injected in the field, producing more than 6 million barrels of oil."

None of these projects use atmospheric CO2 capture, they use fossil fuel recovered CO2.
The ocean sequestration experiment by the Monterrey Bay Aquarium released SEVERAL LITERS[/u] of CO2.

Further experiments at sequestration of canned CO2 were cancelled, due to "green" opposition:
http://www.esemag.com/0902/co2.html
http://www.pacificwhale.org/alerts/CO2.html
http://archive.greenpeace.org/earthsummit/news_july9.html

As for molds, the fact is that individual mold species have varying oxygen requirements and some species require considerably less oxygen than others to propagate and grow. And some mold species actually do best in a low-oxygen or even anaerobic environment. Mold propagation in a building structure isn't exactly a sign of health. It's a sign that ambient environmental conditions are unfortunately conducive to this sort of infestation. Certain molds make people sick. They make some people [b]very sick.

Mold propagation is most strongly related to moisture, NOT some CO2 red herring. I saw no mention of low oxygen levels in the article you cited, anyways. The recommendation was to open the windows and let in some of that fresh outside air in, and to stop rebreathing human-produced CO2. Perhaps they should construct a network of masks & breathing tubes so the students's exhalations can be 'sequestered', eh? Ha!

So there you have it. You were proven wrong, 'footsoldier', the CO2 sequestration projects you hope for produce millions of barrels MORE oil, they don'tb capture atmospheric CO2, and you greens were successful in stopping even small scale ocean experiments. I hope that makes you happy!

jayreynolds

04-17-2005, 05:36 AM

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF
Current Data
(15 min. avg.)
Carbon Dioxide - CO2 (ppmv) 387 08:30 AM

QED
Ha!

OK, I looked at yesterday's plot, and hopefully the link will work. It looks like exactly as would be expected, since temperatures are hovering around freezing during the night at Thompson Farm, CO2 rises during the night, only to settle around 380-390 during the day as the temp rises and plant life begins anew. Like my buddy algore would say, "Earth In the Balance"!
Hey!
http://soot.sr.unh.edu/airmap/archive/hf/20050416TF_CO2.png
http://soot.sr.unh.edu/airmap/archive/hf/20050416TF_OUTT.png

halva

04-17-2005, 06:03 AM

Your Nobody........

You Know It....

Everyone Who Post's Here Knows It........

Jay Reynolds likes Wayne And Wayne Likes Jay......

These Two Idiots are the cause of all of the strife on this thread and others in the Science section......

On One Hand You Have Jay Reynolds........

Whose only claim to fame is to incite chemmies........

but lets take a look at this a little closer............

for almost 6 years.......

Jay Reynolds has stalked numerous people all over the Internet......

based upon what he deems a hoax.............

which are Chemtrails........

anyone who even has a passing interest in this unproven subject........

is earmarked as a KOOK.......

and must be dealt with accordingly .....BY Jay "Jihad" Reynolds........

Usually through the use of slander and outright lying..........

He Says he is a debunker.......

But How Can That Be......When He Has never Debunked Himself.........?

If He Did He Would realize That He Is Human........

Not The Walking Debunker Automaton he has become......

Talk About A Waste of time and energy.....

Then There Is Wayne Hall Jay's arch nemesis......

Who Has A Love/hate relationship going on with jay......

The Battle Wayne Keeps refering to is one that they both have waged since wayne showed up on this site............

with jay his stalker in tow.........

That's RIGHT JAY.........STALKER..........

Because Thats What You Truthfully Have Become.......

you have compromised your ability to rationally reason.......

by the way....

when are you getting that divorce so you and wayne can get hitched.......

You see Folks.......

all of the problems that have effected this science forum are due to these two culprits......

who have been locked in a passionate embrace since the beginning.......

it's a tit for tat game they like to play......

But Not Anymore........

Because I Think The Membership has had it's fill of the Jay reynolds of the world........

and of the Wayne Hall's of the world........

The Jig Is up.......

Both Of You Are In Need of some serious psychiatric help.......

And Jay....Have The Balls To Respond.......

Just Like You Wayne.......

Have The Balls To Respond........

Because I Don't Fear You ........Jay.....

Or You Wayne......

So Let's do something interesting.........

lets have it out......

because these threads are not your fucken personal GRAND CHESS BOARD.......

My hard work is worth more than you two playing fucking mind games day in and day out.......

I am sure the others that have contributed their valuable time and energy to these threads will concur...........

And If any REAL MODERATORS are watching..........

If You Think I Am Full Of Shit.........

Just Read The Threads.....

Their little Love Dance that i like to call Jay And Waynes Mindfuck games.......

are evident throughout.....

It's Time To Scrutinize them both...........

and make them Accountable.....

For their Actions......

WMM

BC has not taken a position on this posting by WMM.

whitemajikman

04-17-2005, 09:32 AM

BC has not taken a position on this posting by WMM.

Of Course Boomer Hasn't......

Boomer Has Nothing To Do with This.......

In Fact .....

What Do You Think YOUR Doing Trying To Get Boomer Involved.......

This Is Between Me...You And Jay Jay.......

Remember The Battle Wayne.........

The One You Think Is GOING ON........

Well I HAVE Decided TO JOIN........

Why Should You And Jay Jay have all the fun......?

of playing mental mind games.......with the posters of this board.,......

and obviously it must be O.K. with the REAL Moderators........

Because for some reason they won't intervene........

And Since Jay Says He Is A Somebody.....

And Has The audacity to imply that he is someone to be reckoned with.......

And you think your somebody to be reckoned with......since you got your Mod Gig.....

I TOO AM SOMEBODY tO BE RECKONED WITH.......

SO LETS START RECKONING........

But Really ......

When It Comes To You TWO.......

Don't You Mean WRECKONING............?

WMM

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 10:25 AM

April 17, 2005

Rowan Williams: A planet on the brink
The Archbishop of Canterbury warns that the price of our continued failure to protect the earth will be violence and social collapse
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=630141

Too often in recent decades, the two big "e" words - ecology and economy - have been used as though they represented opposing concerns. Yes, we should be glad to do more about the environment, if only this didn't interfere with economic development and with the liberty of people and nations to create wealth in whatever ways they can.

Or, we should be glad to address environmental issues if we could be sure that we had first resolved the challenge of economic injustice within and between societies. So from both left and right there has often been a persistent sense that it isn't proper or possible to tackle both together, let alone to give a different sort of priority to ecological matters.

But this separation or opposition has come to look like a massive mistake. It has been said that "the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment". The earth itself is what ultimately controls economic activity because it is the source of the materials upon which economic activity works.

That is why economy and ecology cannot be separated. Ecological fallout from economic development is in no way an "externality" as the economic jargon has it; it is a positive depletion of real wealth, of human and natural capital. To seek to have economy without ecology is to try to manage an environment with no knowledge or concern about how it works in itself - to try to formulate human laws in abstraction from or ignorance of the laws of nature.

It is time to look seriously at the full implications of this. We need to start by recognising that social collapse is a real possibility. When we speak about environmental crisis, we are not to think only of spiralling poverty and mortality, but about brutal and uncontainable conflict. An economics that ignores environmental degradation invites social degradation - in plain terms, violence.

It is no news that access to water is likely to be a major cause of serious conflict in the century just beginning. But this is only one aspect of a steadily darkening situation. Needless to say, it will be the poorest countries that suffer first and most dramatically, but the "developed" world will not be able to escape: the failure to manage the resources we have, has the same consequences wherever we are. In the interim, we can imagine "fortress" strategies (with increasing levels of social control demanded) struggling to keep the growing instability and violence elsewhere at bay and so intensifying its energy.

And we are not talking about a remote future. There are arguments over the exact rates of global warming, certainly, and we cannot easily predict the full effects of some modifications in species balance. But we should not imagine that uncertainty in this or that particular seriously modifies the overall picture. On any account, we are failing.

It is relatively easy to sketch the gravity of our situation; not too difficult either to say that governments should be doing more. But governments depend on electorates; electors are persons like us who need motivating. Unless there is real popular motivation, governments are much less likely to act or act effectively. There are always quite a few excuses around for not taking action, and, without a genuine popular mandate for change, we cannot be surprised or outraged if courage fails and progress is minimal. Our own responsibility is to help change that popular motivation and so to give courage to political leaders. And this means challenging and changing some of the governing assumptions about ourselves as human beings..... (continued)

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 10:28 AM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 17, 2005 - 12:45pm EDT
CO2 - 393 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

halva

04-17-2005, 10:43 AM

Why Should You And Jay Jay have all the fun......?

of playing mental mind games.......with the posters of this board.,......

and obviously it must be O.K. with the REAL Moderators........

Because for some reason they won't intervene........

What action would you like to see from those you describe as the REAL Moderators?

whitemajikman

04-17-2005, 11:10 AM

What action would you like to see from those you describe as the REAL Moderators?

Wayne.....

I Would Totally Destroy You In A Game Of Chess.......

Quit Trying To Play These little Gambits......

Do I Want You And Jay Banned.....?

NO...

But How About You And Jay Disappear For A Few weeks......

Take a break from This Board.....

and actually communicate with each other.....

smooth out all of the differences you two have with each other.....

That Way Upon Both Of You Returning.......

THERE IS NO BATTLE......

Only Intellectual Argument......

Because quite Frankly Wayne.....

You And Jay Have Lost Site Of Why This section is so important....

It Has nothing To Do with Your Private Battle Of Who Is The Biggest Dick.....

You Both Have That Distinction......

And We Are Not Talking About Bodily Appendages Here.....

So Do You think The Moderators Will Be Fair.....?

In Veiwing My assessment of the situation......

Because Really Something needs To be Done.......

WMM

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 04:55 PM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 17, 2005 - 7:30pm EDT
CO2 - 398 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 08:33 PM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 17, 2005 - 11:15pm EDT
CO2 - 432 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 11:04 PM

Mother Jones
May-June 2005

Some Like It Hot

Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

Excerpt:

.....ON FEBRUARY 16, 2005, 140 nations celebrated the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. In the weeks prior, as the friends of ExxonMobil scrambled to inoculate the Bush administration from the bad press that would inevitably result from America’s failure to sign this international agreement to curb global warming, a congressional briefing was organized. Held in a somber, wood-paneled Senate hearing room, the event could not help but have an air of authority.

Like the Crichton talk, however, it was hardly objective. Sponsored by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition, the briefing’s panel of experts featured Myron Ebell, attorney Christopher Horner, and Marshall’s CEO William O’Keefe, formerly an executive at the American Petroleum Institute and chairman of the Global Climate Coalition.

But it was the emcee, Senator Inhofe, who best represented the spirit of the event. Stating that Crichton’s novel should be “required reading,” the ruddy-faced senator asked for a show of hands to see who had finished it. He attacked the “hockey stick” graph and damned the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment for having “no footnotes or citations,” as indeed the ACIA “overview” report—designed to be a “plain language synthesis” of the fully referenced scientific report—does not.

But never mind, Inhofe had done his own research. He whipped out a 1974 issue of Time magazine and, in mocking tones, read from a 30-year-old article that expressed concerns over cooler global temperatures. In a folksy summation, Inhofe again called the notion that humans are causing global warming “a hoax,” and said that those who believe otherwise are “hysterical people, they love hysteria. We’re dealing with religion.”

Having thus dismissed some 2,000 scientists, their data sets and temperature records, and evidence of melting glaciers, shrinking islands, and vanishing habitats as so many hysterics, totems, and myths, Inhofe vowed to stick up for the truth, as he sees it, and “fight the battle out on the Senate floor.”

Seated in the front row of the audience, former ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol looked on approvingly..... END excerpt.

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 11:08 PM

jayreynolds

04-18-2005, 03:59 AM

Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank

ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

"President Clinton’s FY 2001 budget is proposing over $2.4 billion (a more than 40 percent increase over FY 2000 enacted levels) in funding to combat global climate change."

$8 million against billions?
Sounds like a fair fight to me.
How much did your people ante up for a "chemtrail" sampling flight?
Oh, I forgot, that one never got off the ground.
Ha!

jayreynolds

04-18-2005, 04:50 AM

NOAA-
CO2 Increase Rate Back to Normal,
No Need For Alarm

This story entered on 31st Mar, 2005 12:53:43 PM PST

A spike in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2003 appears to be a temporary phenomenon and apparently does not indicate a quickening build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, according to an analysis by NOAA climate experts. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is released into the atmosphere by the burning of wood, coal, oil and gas. Increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are of special interest to scientists because carbon dioxide is a significant heat-trapping greenhouse gas. (Click NOAA image for larger view of carbon cycle greenhouse gases monitoring programs around the world.

As measured in air samples collected from more than 60 sites in the NOAA Global Cooperative Observing Network, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by nearly 5 parts per million (ppm) between 2001 and 2003. The increase in 2002 was 2.43 ppm; the increase in 2003 was 2.30 ppm. In other words, more than two additional carbon-dioxide molecules were added to each million molecules of air each year during that period. The annual increase was higher than the long-term average annual CO2 increase of approximately 1.5 ppm.

Included in the global average carbon dioxide measurements are those from the NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii where the CO2 record is the world's longest continuous observations of atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels, having begun in 1958.

The increased CO2 levels interested scientists who questioned whether some unknown mechanism might be causing the atmosphere to retain higher levels of CO2.

However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.

Most of the variability in the year-to-year CO2 uptake is related to natural processes, including droughts and fires as well as such factors as global temperatures, rainfall amounts and volcanic eruptions.

Understanding these processes is key to forecasting annual CO2 increases, thus providing important information for future CO2 management. NOAA's Carbon Cycle Research Program, which includes surface-, ocean- and space-based measurements of CO2 and other important atmospheric gases, is aimed at developing a comprehensive picture of how CO2 is stored and released. The carbon-cycle studies are a part of NOAA's Climate Program, an integral part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

"Reducing scientific uncertainties of carbon sources and sinks is a priority for the Climate Change Science Program, as carbon dioxide is the single largest forcing agent of climate change," said James R. Mahoney, NOAA deputy administrator and CCSP director.

NOAA scientists have been tracking CO2 levels around the world for more than 25 years. The oldest record comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory, which is located atop a Hawaiian volcano. There, Charles Keeling began CO2 measurements in 1958. Following NOAA's formation in 1970, measurements continued at Mauna Loa and began at other places around the world. There are now more than 60 monitoring sites worldwide.

Mahoney adds, "The measurement capabilities established at NOAA's Mauna Loa and other sites around the world demonstrates the importance of observational networks as a contribution to understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle."

Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hotitems/storyDetail_org.php?sid=2782

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 10:32 AM

Dear BC,

you are so vulnerable. I am very sorry for that. I confess I might be in part (very) ignorant but on the other hand I did notice that in this forum are two climate related threads with many knowledgable posts of people who tremendously care for the matter.

I really got confused and upset about Jay´s suggested favorite website:

"Well, we have this website which keeps track of all the good stuff Kyoto is doing!

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm" (end of quote)

This website is rather cynical. I did not realize immediately, as I should have and as you correctly point out, that Jay is the advocatus diabolus -voice of the thread.
It really got me upside down reading the statements on that website.

I did have a look now at your website, too, BC. California is just a region of hope!
Again, please come over my posts. It is a bit too much to suppose that I would only answer to posts of men. I usually answer to someone whose statement catches my eye or just simply to the last person in the thread. There are many issues in which I trust more in women and that I would rather speak about with them. - As you noticed, I am not sufficiently learned and know little about the US. I am sorry that I touched a woman-issue vene there.
Also, my words were not meant in any way critical or said in a superior tone. I was just wondering aloud and that s all. You don t need to suppose that a person who is not US citizen would always mean their statement as an offence to the US. In the Czech Republic we adore the US more than anything! Look at the many US expats living here and the good social life that Czechs and US expats are having together. It is marvelous. On the other hand the general tone in Europe is that the US is far behind in environmental programs and citizen awareness if we compare it with European standards. It was as well under the impression of such repetitive statements that are taken here for "common ground" that I made my statements in the post.
Lastly, I found funny that you say if I "were the person I say I am". I don´t remember presenting myself extensively which maybe I should have done. But why should I give so much importance to myself? All the more I am surprised by your statement. I am just a student of philosophy, I have travelled quite a lot within Europe and Asia and am struggling my way forward. Sure, there are plenty of subjects I am ignorant of. I try my best to find a remedy for it. And I find this experience in an American Board very rewarding.
Thank you, too, for helping me understand a bit better the US and helping me acknowledge the widespread caring of a majority citizens for the environment!

peace.

"The world lies in the hands of those who have the courage to dream and who take the risk of living out their dreams - each according to his or her own talent." The Valkyries

Dear Peace Fries,

Thank you so much for your sharing sentiments. It helps all world relations to communicate in full and with great heart, whether communicating on a board with a small membership or communicating in the U.N., or other multi-national social structures.

My direct passionate action with you on this board was to dispel misconceptions about our country and our people in general regarding environmental concerns. And now you and I have reached a greater understanding and in that have increased understanding and realizations within all who read this forum, and out beyond into our social circles.

When anyone of any nation enters a board or ongoing discussion, it's best not to present any kind of judgment statements. I suppose you learned that lesson? It simply puts the posters in a defense position especially if the statements refer to a wide swath of people or the posters themselves. "It is a pity......" " Americans are....." are examples of such kinds of opinion statements that require defense. So, it's not that I, personally, am particularly vulnerable, no.... it is that I must take the time out to educate someone who obviously does not possess the information needed in order to form an accurate picture regarding their judgment.

I'm so glad my effort paid off. Do contribute .... and if you have any more questions, please ask!

You are more than welcome to visit and post here! WELCOME!!!

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 10:52 AM

Well, I read it yesterday and have thought about it. Had heard some of it before, but it was nice to see what the authors had to say.
"We've got to get rid of the "Medieval Warm Period"....."
Looks like Mann etal. were successful.
See it here?
http--news.bbc.co.uk-nol-shared-spl-hi-pop_ups-04-sci_nat_enl_1092666337-img-1.jpg
I found this BBC news article on the controversy from one month ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4349133.stm

So, we have claims made which turn out to be false, we have dta which is labeled "censored" being witheld, and we have media giving short shrift to the story, and by and large, a 'scientific' community which practices censorship and groupthink.

The parallels with that of the 'chemtrails" debate are amazing.

In the case against "chemtrails" we have many of the same elements:

-anonymous "researchers" hiding from criticism ["Chemtrails Over America"(editor 'foootsoldier')] making claims about barium, etc being sprayed yet showing no proof of it

- a "deep shield atmospheric scientist" [an admitted liar named David G. Stewart] purporting to tell us things later shown to be plagiarized from online dictionaries.

-people like Brian Holmes posting photos of ordinary contrails misattributed and purported to be spraying, and claims about USAF newsletters called "chemtrails" proven false yet remaining

-a preposterous racist grand conspiracy theory by a disgruntled low-level DOE employee with delusions of grandeur[Jim Phelps] being promugated as fact

-a cult-like atmosphere wherein these people refuse to show their sources, indeed to show any eveidence whatsoever, and yet get away with it

-a groupthink cooperative which allows them to remain silent, refrains from self-criticism, yet censors counter-arguments

Yes, some amazing stuff there. Most people woul just be satisfied to sit and think, "Somebody ought to do something about that."

Guess I'm "somebody".

Jay.... you use excellent comparative skills here and I would disagree with only one of them. Well, I would disagree with one specific and another rather general assumption of yours. First of all, and I've mentioned it before, using the word "cult" is simply an exagerrated and twisted form of word usage. In fact, in the dictionary definition of cult NEITHER the global warming theorists nor the chemtrail theorists can with academic precision wear the label of "cult." It simply does not apply. In comparative terms regarding the general global warming theory and their scientists verses the chemtrail theory and their people exists a huge gap in expertise and scientific inquiry. While many sham scientists with NO DEGREES and NO scientific backing support the chemtrail theory, legitimate DEGREED scientists debate the global warming issue. There is really no comparison in the global warming group verses the chemtrail group in terms of scientific inquiry and legitimate scientific credentials..... NO COMPARISON. The superior? Global Warming!

Comparing a Phelps to an IPCC scientists is like comparing Dr. Wendell Cory to Dr. Robert Muller. :p

IPCC scientists may be inaccurate in their computer models and might be politically motivated and prejudiced in their desire to find correlations.... but they attempt to verify their science in an ongoing and responsible way and that will be verified through their next upcoming report.

In general one can say the legitimate scientific debate regarding Global Warming is ongoing and research to substantiate the theories continues as well.

In terms of chemtrails, the community of theorists is confined to those who have no resources, have no funding, aren't legitmate scientists and within the range of theorists exists conspiracy theorists of a wide range of philosophic backgrounds.... some more credible others ridiculously not credible or plausible. Still, I value the freedom for all researchers in the chemtrail theory to prove to themselves and others whether their theories are valid or not.

So, these are the areas of which I basically disagree with your comparative analysis.

If you wish to present the opposing side to either theory, that is your freedom as well, within the confines of considerate academic response and activism. There are no "cults" involved.

I will not waste my time posting the definition of a "cult." Anyone can google search the definition and read it for their own edification.

Thanks.

BC :p

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 10:57 AM

masher

04-18-2005, 12:16 PM

> "As for molds, the fact is that individual mold species have varying oxygen requirements and some species require considerably less oxygen than others..."

A nice bit of misdirection, but you're still skirting the issue. Increased CO2 levels do not cause higher mold growth...in fact, quite the opposite. This is why you rarely open a can of soda and find mold inside. All the O2 in normal air has been replaced with CO2. There is an entire field of food packaging (known as MAP) which consists of replacing the air in a can, bottle, or bag with a neutral gas such as CO2.

There are molds which are obligately or facultatively anaerobic, and will grow without oxygen. However, their metabolism doesn't utilize CO2 either, so any increase in carbon dioxide levels wouldn't affect their growth rate either.

I realize the facts don't sit will with your fear-mongering attitude, so feel free to ignore them if you wish.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 12:54 PM

.....I realize the facts don't sit will with your fear-mongering attitude, so feel free to ignore them if you wish.....
Take it up with the EPA.

Also, I might add that if you have no long-term direct experience with the specific region being referenced then you don't know what's going on there.

Thank you.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 12:57 PM

Boomer Chick wrote:
.....I would also add that insects respond to temperature and atmospheric gas composition and we must be aware of the whole biosphere in regard to CO2, other gases, and temperature as well.....
Absolutely, yes. And changes in insect populations can be directly observed. No computer models to fight about there!

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 02:02 PM

Just some interesting facts regarding allergies, molds, and fungi :

Lower level ozone negatively affects asthma:

http://allergies.about.com/cs/asthma/a/blniehs09082003.htm

Evolutionary planetary cycles involving climate change and related systems:

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=18336

More on fungi and plants and how they affect us:
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?
fuseaction=news&doc_id=9267&start=1&control=219&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1

Molds in the home:

http://allergies.about.com/cs/molds/a/aa020501a.htm

Mycotoxins in corn:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2004/041221.htm

ABOUT MOLD, MILDEW AND MOISTURE

What is Mold?
Molds, which are currently classified as inactive fungi, are simple, microscopic organisms, and are present virtually everywhere, indoors and outdoors. There are hundreds of thousands of known species of mold with thousands of these species being common in the United States. Some of the most commonly found are species of Cladosporium, Fusarium, Stachybotrys, Cephalosporium, Trichoderma, Penicillium and Aspergillus. Molds, also mushrooms and yeasts, are needed to break down dead material and recycle nutrients in the environment. Molds and mildew are currently classified as fungi and protistans that grow on surfaces of objects, within pores, and in deteriorated materials. Molds are very adaptable and can colonize dead and decaying organic matter (e.g., textiles, leather, wood, paper) and even damp, inorganic material (e.g., glass, painted surfaces, bare concrete) if organic nutrients such as dust or soil particles are available. Mold is most likely to grow where there is water or dampness, such as in bathrooms, basements, kitchens and damp or moist crawl spaces. However, mold can grow almost anywhere. Because various genera grow and reproduce at different substrate water concentrations and temperatures, molds occur in an extremely wide range of habitats. Molds and mildews can cause discoloration and odor problems, and lead to allergic reactions in susceptible individuals, as well as other more serious health problems.

How does mold grow?
It was previously believed that for mold growth to occur, it needed a temperature range of above 40 degrees Fahrenheit and below 100 degrees Fahrenheit. We now know that it can grow well below and above that range, depending on a variety of other conditions. Human comfort constraints limit the use of temperature control to check mold growth.

Mold needs a nutrient base to grow, specifically cellulose particles. Because molds grow by digesting the by-products that other organisms leave behind on organic material, they can grow almost anywhere. Sometimes new molds grow on old mold colonies. Mold growth on surfaces can often be seen in the discoloration, frequently green, red, gray, brown or black, but also white and other colors. Spores are almost always present in outdoor and indoor air, and almost all commonly used construction materials and furnishings can provide nutrients to support mold growth. Dirt on surfaces provides additional, easily consumed nutrients. Cleaning and disinfecting with non-polluting cleaners and antimicrobial agents provides some protection against mold growth, but is not a guarantee. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to eliminate all nutrients.

And finally, mold needs moisture to grow. Moisture control is the single-most important strategy for reducing mold growth, as it is the most easily maintained or eliminated of the growth sources. Mold growth does not require the presence of standing water; it can occur when high relative humidity or the hygroscopic properties (the tendency to absorb and retain moisture) of surfaces allow sufficient moisture to accumulate. However, relative humidity and the factors that govern it are often misunderstood.

Climate and Molds
Fungal species that are allergenic have been identified virtually everywhere they have been measured. They are common around 3,000 feet and are found at altitudes as high as 7,000 to 10,000 feet. They are found in surprisingly high concentrations in clouds and in the air during almost every type of climactic condition. Hormodendrum, Alternaria, Fusarium, Helminthosporium, and the yeasts are considered to be universal dominants, and with some variation are found in worldwide surveys. There are seasonal patterns and indoor mold concentration is dependent on the outdoor concentration. Aspergillus and Penicillium are usually non-seasonal and regularly found indoors.

Natural Climates:
Barometric Pressure and Relative Humidity
Temperature and Relative Humidity
Hot Wind (above body temperature) and Cold Wind (wind chill)
Positive Ions
Precipitation and Fog
Type and Amount of Atmospheric mold
Local and Non-local Vegetation
Inversion Layers and Stagnant Conditions
Rapid Changes in All Variables
Man-Made Climates:
Indoor Cooling Devices (humidifiers, air conditioners)
Atmospheric Dust from Auto Traffic on Unpaved Roads
Heating Ducts containing Dust and Spores
Damp Basements, Walls and Shower Curtains
Mold Substrates from Agriculture, Imported Trees and Shrubs, House Plants

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 02:03 PM

Fungi and molds are found in soil, in water, on animals, on vegetation, in humans and in almost every part of the environment. They are frequently found in many foods and beverages, as they are incorporated during processing and manufacturing of these items. Molds float freely in the air. A mere 20 m.p.h. breeze can cause mold spores to travel 200 miles in 10 hours. When there is snow on the ground for at least five days there is a significant decrease in airborne molds. Molds can produce large numbers of spores from a microscopic amount of growth. Aspergillus, Penicillium, Rhizopus, Mucor, Fusarium and Gliocladium are molds that do this and they are found in large amounts in both the indoor and outdoor environments at all times. The most common airborne molds include, in order: Hormodendrum, Alternaria, Penicillium and Aspergillus. Others are: Helminthosporium, Aureobasidium, Phoma, Nigrospora, Rhizopus, Mucor, Epicoccum, Stemphyllium, Curvularia, Fusarium, Scoplariopsis, Cephalosporium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, Streptomyces, Candida, Cryptococcus, Rhodotorula, Rusts and Smuts.

Mold can form spores and resist heat and cold. Molds have been isolated on rocks in the Sahara desert. Mold can even be found in outer space! It has been found on the Russian space station "Mir" and other orbiting bodies, and has prompted NASA to investigate how to deal with the problem. Dryness and ventilation are keys (but light as a factor is a common misconception), as the mold will be endless if the conditions that encourage it are not changed. Removing mold should be done by someone other than a sensitive individual.

Can mold become a problem in my home or work environment?
Yes! Mold will grow and multiply whenever conditions are right; such as when there is sufficient moisture availability and when organic nutrients are present. Poor indoor air quality is associated most often with inadequate ventilation, but investigations are linking microbial growth with occupancy problems, construction problems, moisture control problems and maintenance problems. Watch for the most common sources of indoor moisture that may lead to mold problems in your home or workplace:

Flooding
Leaky roofs
Sprinkler systems adding moisture to the structure
Plumbing leaks
Repeated toilet back-ups
Overflow from sinks, sewers, tubs
Damp basements or crawl spaces
Steam streams from showers or cooking areas
Humidifiers
Wet clothes drying indoors or clothes dryers exhausting indoors
Indoor saunas, hot tubs or Jacuzzi areas
Water heater leaks
Poor drainage systems
Improperly installed, repaired or replaced HVAC systems
Warping floors and discoloration of walls and ceilings can be indications of moisture problems. Condensation on or in walls and floors and around window sills is also an important indication, but it can sometimes be caused by an indoor combustion problem! Have burning appliances routinely inspected by your local utility or a professional SCMAA heating contractor.

So what IS the concern about mold?
Molds have been recognized for centuries. From Biblical times through today, we find references to its existence and the problems it creates. Maimomedes in the 12th century described the frequent occurrence of wheezing in damp weather. In 1726, Sir John Floyer noted violent asthma related to a wine cellar visit. In 1873, Blackley suggested that Chaetomium and Penicillium were related to bronchial secretions. Van Leeuwen, in 1924, noted the relation of climate to asthma and made a definitive correlation of mold spores to asthma. It was that same year that the first case of asthma due to a mold was reported and that involved wheat rust.

Molds are typically filamentous, spore-bearing organisms without chlorophyll. They do not require sunlight to thrive, which enhances their insidious nature. They depend on outside sources for nourishment. There are tens of thousands described species and predictably more species awaiting discovery. Low temperatures and aging can favor the filamentous forms, while glucose, blood or the absence of oxygen favor the yeast form. Living organisms constantly evolve. Taxonomic categories need to be reassessed by a consensus of biologists. Intermediate forms of fungi and molds are bound to exist and rise by hybridization and mutation. The SCMAA supports the
belief that molds should be classified in their own kingdom.

Fungi and protistans function to enrich human existence by maintaining the ecology. But they can also serve to do the exact opposite and risk human well-being. They are present in large numbers and fungi disintegrate organic matter. They damage food, fabrics, leather, and consumer goods. They cause the majority of plant diseases. They certainly cause significant human and animal diseases. Certain mushrooms and fungi are well known to be poisonous.

When moldy material becomes damaged or disturbed, countless lightweight spores (reproductive bodies similar to seeds) are released to travel freely through the air. When mold grows in one area, it can emit particles that travel through the air. Generally, these particles will settle into one area if there is little air movement. But some of the particles will inevitably stay airborne, so that inhabitants can be exposed not just in the room where the mold is growing, but throughout the entire house or workplace. If spores enter the return air duct, the mold will be dispersed throughout the entire structure. We recommend using HEPA filters to help trap and reduce the amount of mold spores being dispersed; however, they will not completely eliminate the dispersal of mold spores.

Exposure occurs if people inhale the spores, directly handle moldy materials, or accidentally ingest it. If indoor mold contamination is extensive, it will cause very high and persistent airborne mold exposures. Those who are exposed to high spore levels will become sensitized and develop allergies to the mold or other health related problems. Under certain metabolic conditions, many molds produce and then carry mycotoxins, natural organic compounds that initiate a toxic response in vertebrates. The primary mode of human exposure to mycotoxins is inhalation of spores and mold-contaminated material. Molds that are important potential producers of toxins indoors are certain species of Fusarium, Penicillium, and Aspergillus. In water-damaged buildings Stachybotrys chartarum (a.k.a. Stachybotrys atra) and Aspergillus versicolor may also produce toxic metabolites. A wide variety of information is available on the human and animal health effects from ingestion of certain mycotoxins, and researchers have been exploring the health implications of inhalation exposure to these substances since 1970. Two classes of mycotoxins have been isolated from house dust samples: aflatoxins from some strains of Aspergillus flavus and trichothecenes from some species and strains of Fusarium, Cephalosporium, Stachybotrys and Trichoderma. In laboratory animals, inhalation of trichothecene mycotoxins causes severe inhibition of protein synthesis and immunosuppression. Several case reports have associated overgrowths of trichothecene-producing fungi with human health effects such as cold and flu-like symptoms, sore throats, headache and general malaise.

However, isolation of a toxigenic mold from a structure does not imply the presence of mycotoxins, since the physical conditions necessary for mycotoxin production are very specific, and are often different from those required for growth of the parent mold. Likewise, failure to produce toxins in vitro (in the laboratory) does not mean that a mold known to be toxogenic will not produce toxins in a field situation. These rare but life-threatening problems tend to overshadow the importance of allergy problems to molds as a pervasive aggravating factor in chronic illness and disability in medical school education.

Molds also produce a large number of volatile organic compounds, known as VOCs. These chemicals are responsible for the musty odors produced by growing molds. The most common VOC, ethanol, is a potent synergizer of many fungal toxins.

***
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic104.htm

Outdoor molds

Atmospheric conditions can affect the growth and dispersion of a number of molds; therefore, their airborne prevalence may vary depending on climate and season.

For example, Alternaria and Cladosporium are particularly prevalent in the dry and windy conditions of the Great Plains states, where they grow on grasses and grains. Their dispersion often peaks on sunny afternoons. They are virtually absent when snow is on the ground in winter, and they peak in the summer months and early fall.

Aspergillus and Penicillium can be found both outdoors and indoors (particularly in humid households), with variable growth depending on the season or climate. Their spores can also be dispersed in dry conditions.

masher

04-18-2005, 02:36 PM

> "Take it up with the EPA..."

Take what up with the EPA? The fact that molds refuse to grow faster when exposed to more CO2? What do you want the EPA to do about it? Pass a law to force molds to behave as you wish?

> "I might add that if you have no long-term direct experience with the specific region being referenced then you don't know what's going on there..."

A curious response. Do you feel the laws governing fungi metabolism vary from California to New York? Or that molds in other nations greedily consume CO2, even though our own local molds refuse to do so?

I don't have any direct experience with Tasmania. But I'm sure the basic laws of physics and biology apply there, just as they do everywhere else.

Why not just admit the truth and accept you were wrong? You'd save a great deal of embarrassment in the long run.

masher

04-18-2005, 02:43 PM

> "Aspergillus and Penicillium can be found both outdoors and indoors (particularly in humid households)..."

Given the known dangers of certain toxic molds, when is the EPA going to stop bowing to corporate interests and do something about "humid households"? Allowing showers, toilets, and running water in people's homes is far too risky, and endangers not only our health, but that of our children as well!

We need government to step up and take action. Just yesterday I noticed a speck of mold on my shower wall. I never would have installed one in my home had I been properly advised of the risks involved. Plumbing equipment must be properly regulated and installed only in government-supervised locations, and the profit-hungry manufacturers of shower heads and bathubs must be brought to task for their reckless actions.

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 02:51 PM

BINGO!

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/86/99014.htm?z=1728_00000_1000_ln_01

Researchers Say Increased Greenhouse Gases Cause Increased Levels of Pollen and Other Allergens

By Todd Zwillich
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Thursday, April 29, 2004

April 29, 2004 -- Rising greenhouse gas levels may be contributing to expanding rates of asthma in U.S. cities and worsening allergies in millions of urban and suburban people, a new Harvard Medical School report shows.

Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. More pollen in the air is likely worsening allergic diseases such as asthma and may be to blame for the rise in cases among children, they conclude.

Soot from diesel engines may also contribute to the problem by irritating the lungs of asthma suffers, in effect weakening their defenses to the pollen, according to the report, which was funded by the Civil Society Institute, a nonprofit organization funding research in environmental and health issues.

"We are seeing some very troubling new evidence that may be exacerbating the allergies and allergens and the assaults on our respiratory systems," says Paul R. Epstein, MD, the report's co-author.

"Frankly it is a new problem that we do not know how to solve," says Epstein, who is associate director of the Center for Health and Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

Asthma on the Rise

Approximately 14 million U.S. adults and 9 million children have asthma, according to 2001 CDC figures. Childhood asthma rates have more than doubled in the U.S, since 1984 in a trend that has largely baffled scientists. Some cite improved diagnosis for the increased numbers, while others blame worsening pollution and crowded living conditions that expose children to asthma-causing cockroach dander and dust mites.

Researchers say that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) may be a main culprit. Recent studies identified CO2 levels in large U.S. cities including Phoenix and Baltimore, Md., that are at times up to 60% higher than in rural areas. Burning fossil fuel -- coal, oil and natural gases -- is the greatest contributor to the continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A 2003 study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology suggested that ragweed, which produces one of the most common allergens, is responding to the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere by producing more pollen.

"Ragweed grew faster, flowered earlier, and produced significantly greater above-ground biomass and ragweed pollen at urban locations than at rural locations," an abstract of the study concludes.

Not Just Asthma, Not Just Cities?

Experts warned that the pollen problem may spread beyond inner cities. Global atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) at the start of the industrial revolution to 379 ppm today, according to the report.

It means that ragweed could thrive in suburban and rural areas as well, says Christine Rogers, PhD, a Harvard researcher and the study's other co-author. Up to 40 million Americans suffer from ragweed allergies, also known as hay fever.

"All Americans certainly are at risk for this," says Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

But not everyone is convinced of the connection between CO2, pollen, and asthma. While CO2 has been shown to boost growth and pollen production in plants, no studies, including this Harvard report, have been able to find a hard link between increased pollen and asthma, says Bill O'Keefe, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank that regularly questions the extent humans' impact on CO2 levels and climate change.

"No one debates that CO2 levels are going up," says O'Keefe, who adds that his group receives funding from petroleum producers and industry groups. But of the link between those levels and rising rates of asthma, he says, "I think it's a stretch."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES: "Inside the Greenhouse: The Impacts of CO2 and Climate Change on Public Health in the Inner City, Center for Health and the Global Environment," Harvard Medical School, April 29, 2004. Paul R. Epstein, MD, associate director of the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Ziska L. "Cities as harbingers of climate change: common ragweed, urbanization, and public health," Journal of Allergy Clinical Immunology, February 2003; vol 111: pp 290- 295. Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director, American Public Health Association. Bill O'Keefe, president, Marshall Institute.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
.....BINGO!

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article...0000_1000_ln_01

Researchers Say Increased Greenhouse Gases Cause Increased Levels of Pollen and Other Allergens

By Todd Zwillich
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Thursday, April 29, 2004

April 29, 2004 -- Rising greenhouse gas levels may be contributing to expanding rates of asthma in U.S. cities and worsening allergies in millions of urban and suburban people, a new Harvard Medical School report shows.

Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. More pollen in the air is likely worsening allergic diseases such as asthma and may be to blame for the rise in cases among children, they conclude.....
Exactly.

Thank you kindly.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 03:12 PM

masher

04-18-2005, 03:48 PM

Lol...pollen, mold...whats the difference, especially when you have such a poor grasp of biology and science in general, eh?

Also, allow me to quote from you own link:

no studies, including this Harvard report, have been able to find a hard link between increased pollen and asthma...
Face facts. CO2 isn't causing increased mold growth. And faster plant growth is, in general, a very good thing for us humans.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 04:30 PM

Ah, I see. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is actually good for us. You sound like a supporter of the Greening Earth Society. Your privilege of course.

The Greening Earth Society VS. the State of the World
- by Ian Smith, in collaboration with NOAA Scientist Pieter Tans
http://cem.colorado.edu/archives/sp1999/ian.html

For several years now, scientific groups around the world have been warning the general public about the dangers of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Most of these gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, have been building up in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

By now, there is a general consensus among the general population and political institutions of the world that the large increase of these gases is destructive to the atmosphere and that actions must be taken to mitigate it. In addition, it is becoming more and more obvious, both through research and common sense, that Earth and oil fields are not going to last forever. During the past few decades, we have come to realize how much our society depends on oil and oil by-products and have begun to discover new sources of energy that will sustain us after the oil is gone. Most, if not all of these sources, are much cleaner than oil as well (solar cells, electric motors, wind energy, etc.), which is nice, because gases like CO2 must be minimized.

But could this all be for naught? Could it be that there is nothing to worry about? Allow me to introduce the Greening Earth Society: a Virginia-based organization dedicated to spreading the claim that increases in CO2 levels is good. They say that the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are actually beneficial to plants around the world because, with more CO2, plants grow better and faster.

In their welcoming, innocent looking web page, the group points out specific examples of pastures in New Zealand, forests in Africa and crop fields around the world that have shown positive results as an effect of increased CO2 levels. The page also points out a review done by the New Hope Environmental Services entitled, "A Defense of Carbon Dioxide," which was aimed directly at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Clean Air Act. The review stated that CO2 should not be defined as a pollutant, and that the increase of carbon dioxide in the air has nothing to do with the theory of global warming.

So, why is the Greening Earth Society going to such lengths to teach us all of this? Well, their belief is that there is no need to worry about releasing an excess amount of carbon dioxide. They believe that humankind's industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels is good and "as natural as breathing." They proclaim that the amount of CO2 grows with the human race, and that nature and CO2 levels can grow together in harmony.

A while back, an article in the Colorado Daily entitled, "Is CO2 Your Friend?," written by Brian Hansen, told us about the Greening Earth Society (GES) and its president, Fredrick Palmer. In Hansen's article, Palmer referred to a study put out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), right here in Boulder, to bolster his side of the story. In the study, it was found that the North American continent, as a whole, is actually acting as a type of "landsink" for CO2. In other words, parts of the continent are taking in more CO2 than they are producing. For Palmer, this study simply reinforces his beliefs that nature is capable of dealing with CO2 increases and that the government agencies that warn us about global warming as a result of high CO2 levels are wrong..... (continued)

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 04:34 PM

Jay clone:

"Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. " (from above article)

And the reference to asthma and pollen was not the information we were seeking.

CO2 tends to increase the pollen and spore production of both molds and plants!

Hello? Anybody there... inside your brain? :p

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 05:47 PM

.

3 Petals !!! :D

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 06:26 PM

Climate of Denial

One morning in Kyoto, we won a round in the battle against global warming. Then special interests and pseudoscience snatched the truth away. What happened?

By Bill McKibben

May/June 2005 Issue

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/mckibben_introduction.html

It was around eight in the morning in the vast convention hall in Kyoto. The negotiations over a worldwide treaty to limit global warming gases, which were supposed to have ended the evening before, had gone on through the night. Drifts of paper—treaty drafts, industry talking points, environmentalist press releases—overflowed every wastebasket. Delegates in suits and ties were passed out on couches, noisily mouth breathing. And polite squadrons of workers were shooing people out of the hall so that some trade show—tool and die makers, I think—could set up its displays.

Finally, from behind the closed doors, word emerged that we had a treaty. The greens all cheered, halfheartedly—since it wasn't as though the agreement would go anywhere near far enough to arrest global warming—but firm in their conviction that the tide on the issue had finally turned. After a decade of resistance, the oil companies and the car companies and all the other deniers of global warming had seen their power matched.

Or so it seemed. I was standing next to a top industry lobbyist, a man who had spent the last week engineering opposition to the treaty, huddling with Exxon lawyers and Saudi delegates, detailing the Venezuelans to change this word, the Kuwaitis to soften that number. Right now he looked just plain tired. "I can't wait to get back to Washington," he said. "In Washington we'll get this under control again."

At the time I thought he was blowing smoke, putting on a game face, whistling past the graveyard of corporate control. I almost felt sorry for him; it seemed to me (as sleep-deprived as everyone else) that we were on the brink of a new world.

As it turned out, we both were right. The rest of the developed world took Kyoto seriously; in the eight years since then, the Europeans and the Japanese have begun to lay the foundation for rapid and genuine progress toward the initial treaty goal of cutting carbon emissions to a level 5 to 10 percent below what it was in 1990. You can see the results of that long Kyoto night in the ranks of windmills rising along the coast of the North Sea, in the solar panels sprouting on German rooftops, and in the remarkable political unanimity in most of the world on the need for rapid change. Tony Blair's science adviser has repeatedly called global warming a greater threat than terrorism, but that hasn't been enough for Britain's Conservatives; the Tory leader (the equivalent of, say, Tom DeLay) rose last summer to excoriate Blair for moving too slowly on carbon reductions.

In Washington, however, the lobbyists did get things "under control." Eight years after Kyoto, Big Oil and Big Coal remain in complete and unchallenged power. Around the country, according to industry analysts, 68 new coal-fired power plants are in various stages of planning. Detroit makes cars that burn more fuel, on average, than at any time in the last two decades. The president doesn't mention the global warming issue, and the leaders of the opposition don't, either: John Kerry didn't exactly run on solving the climate crisis. The high-water mark for legislative action came in 2003, when John McCain actually managed to persuade 43 senators to support a bill calling for at least some carbon reductions, albeit much lower than even the modest Kyoto levels. But given that it takes 60 votes to beat a filibuster and 66 to override a veto, and given that the GOP has since added four hard-right senators to its total, it's safe to say that nothing will be happening inside the Beltway anytime soon.

IT WAS NEVER going to be easy. Controlling global warming is not like the other battles (dirty water, smog) that environmentalists have taken on, and mostly won, over the years. Carbon dioxide, a.k.a. CO2, or just "carbon" for short, is not a conventional pollutant. It's tasteless, colorless, odorless. Unlike carbon monoxide, which is what kills you if you leave your car running in the garage, CO2 doesn't do anything to the human body directly. It does its damage in the lower atmosphere by holding in heat that would otherwise escape out to space. And even more unfortunate, there's no easy way to get rid of it, no catalytic converter you can stick on your tailpipe, no scrubber you can fit to your smokestack. To reduce the amount of CO2 pouring into the atmosphere means dramatically reducing the amount of fossil fuel being consumed. Which means changing the underpinning of the planet's entire economy and altering our most ingrained personal habits. Even under the best scenarios, this will involve something more like a revolution than a technical fix.

You would think the Europeans would have had a harder time making reductions; after all, they were already fairly energy-efficient, thanks to decades of high taxes on coal and oil. Their low-hanging fruit had long since been plucked. For the United States, there were loads of relatively easy fixes. We could have quickly reduced our emissions by trimming the number of SUVs on the road, for instance, while the French were already in Peugeots. However, in certain ways, America was more firmly locked into coal and oil than our European peers: sprawling suburbs, oversized houses, abandoned rail lines. We had the single hardest habit to break, which was thinking of energy as something cheap. This staggering inertia meant that even when our leaders had some interest in controlling energy use, they faced a real challenge. Al Gore wrote a book insisting that the future of civilization itself depended on battling global warming; during his eight years as vice president, Americans increased their carbon emissions by 15 percent.

What makes the battle harder still is the tangibility gap between benefits and costs. Everyone is, in the long run, better off if the planet doesn't burn to a crisp. But in any given year the payoff for shifting away from fossil fuel is incremental and essentially invisible. The costs, however, are concentrated: If you own a coal mine, an oil well, or an assembly line churning out gas-guzzlers, you have a very strong incentive for making sure no one starts charging you for emitting carbon.

At the very least, the "energy sector" needed to stall for time, so that its investments in oil fields and the like could keep on earning for their theoretical lifetimes. The strategy turned out to be simple: Cloud the issue as much as possible so that voters, already none too eager to embrace higher gas prices, would have no real reason to move climate change to the top of their agendas. I mean, if the scientists aren't absolutely certain, well, why not just wait until they get it sorted out?

The tactic worked brilliantly; throughout the 1990s, even as other nations took action, the fossil fuel industry's Global Climate Coalition managed to make American journalists treat the accelerating warming as a he-said-she-said story. True, a vast scientific consensus was forming that climate change threatens the earth more profoundly than anything since the dawn of civilization, but in an Associated Press dispatch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change didn't look all that much more impressive than, say, Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute or S. Fred Singer, former chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Michaels and Singer weren't really doing new research, just tossing jabs at those who were, but that didn't matter. Their task was not to build a new climate model; it was to provide cover for politicians who were only too happy to duck the issue. Their task was to keep things under control.

It was all incredibly crude. But it was also incredibly effective. For now and for the foreseeable future, the climate skeptics have carried the day. They've understood the shape of American politics far better than environmentalists. They know that it doesn't matter how many scientists are arrayed against you as long as you can intimidate newspapers into giving you equal time. They understand, too, that playing defense is all they need to do: Given the inertia inherent in the economy, it's more than sufficient to simply instill doubt.

IN SHORT, the deniers have done their job, and done it better than the environmen- talists have done theirs. They've delayed action for 15 years now, and their power seems to grow with each year. How, even as the science grew ever firmer and the evidence mounted ever higher, did the climate deniers manage to muddy the issue? It's one of the mightiest political feats of our time, accomplished by a small group of clever and committed people. It's worthwhile trying to understand how they work, not least because some of the same tactics are now being used in debates over other issues, like Social Security. And because the fight over global warming won't end here. Try as they might, even with all three branches of government under their control, conservative Republicans can't repeal the laws of chemistry and physics.

Bill McKibben is a contributing writer to Mother Jones and the author of several books, including his most recent, Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America's Most Hopeful Landscapes, Vermont's Champlain Valley and New York's Adirondacks.

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 06:34 PM

http://i-newswire.com/pr15463.html

-Newswire, 2005-04-18 - Professor James Gustave Speth, Dean of Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, urged the scientific community to make its case to the public, which remains unconvinced of the crisis despite decades of first-rate science and policy analysis, he said.

Temperatures at the Arctic are already climbing, and there will be "irreparable damage in the decades ahead due to our negligence" in addressing climate change. U.S. policy makers and citizens must be spurred into action, Speth said in his talk, "Some Say by Fire: Climate Change and the American Response," held Wednesday, April 6.

"If I had a hundred million dollars," Speth said, "I think I'd put almost every penny of it into a public service advertising campaign…because we've got to reach lots of people quickly with this issue."

Speth is a founder of the World Resources Institute, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council and former advisor to Presidents Carter and Clinton. His lecture was sponsored by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

Climate-change research results and forecasts appear repeatedly in the scientific literature--some information "startling in its significance"--but Speth said good climate science rarely reaches the public in a "forceful and meaningful way." Indeed, the mainstream American press persists in portraying global change as controversial and uncertain, he said.

There is now clear consensus among scientists that Earth's climate is being affected by the greenhouse gases generated by human activities. "We've seen these credible forecasts and credible warnings coming from the scientific community for the better part of three decades," Speth said. "But the influence of all the good science on policy and action has been puny compared with the need."

Noting MIT's phenomenal capacity to help tackle this critical global problem, Speth called for scientists at MIT and elsewhere to actively engage in public policy debates and issues. "Only the scientific community has the credibility to take the climate issue to the public and to the politicians," he said.

Given the lack of action at the federal level, he called for building a broad network of civic, scientific, environmental, religious, business and other communities to demand action and to take concrete steps to reduce emissions.

What can universities do? He recommended that they join together and commit to reducing their own emissions, which are often significant.

As it happens, MIT is collaborating with the City of Cambridge to implement its Climate Protection Plan, which calls for a reduction of citywide greenhouse-gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. To set an appropriate emissions-reduction goal, MIT recently completed a detailed analysis of its emissions. For more information on MIT's environmental commitment and activities, visit web.mit.edu/environment.

A version of this article appeared in the April 13, 2005 issue of MIT Tech Talk ( Volume 49, Number 24 ).

If you have questions regarding information in these press release contact the company listed below. Please do not contact us as we are unable to assist you with your inquiry. We disclaim any content contained in this press release.

Company Details
Nancy Stauffer, Laboratory for Energy and the Envi
Press Release Date
2005-04-18

***

Yes, it did seem familiar but I thought I'd post it anyway!

;)

Boomer Chick

04-18-2005, 06:42 PM

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/cgi-bin/features?art=2005_04_18_02

UCSD offers understanding on global warming issues
Models of global warming provide scientists with wealth of information, but no solution

By LAURA CANTER
Staff Writer

UCSD, considered to be one of the most prestigious research institutions in the country, has been acknowledged for its breakthrough research in global warming study thanks to some of the most dedicated atmospheric scientists in the field. Most recently, research at UCSD has focused on changing weather patterns and the particles and gradients affecting such changes. In the ongoing debate on the causes of global climate changes, evidence found by these scientists is considered to be the most convincing.

Concern over global warming dates back to Roger Revelle’s discovery of how sea water controls the amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Revelle's discovery caused a massive reorganization within the fields of environment and earth sciences. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to global warming by making it more difficult for solar radiation to escape into space, causing an increase in air pollution and rising sea levels due to melting glaciers. Changes in weather patterns and temperature in certain areas have also verified that the temperature of the atmosphere has increased. These problems, in part, are due to the emission of aerosols released from cars, trucks and coal-burning power plants. Fossil-fuel use in the United States is responsible for more CO2 emission than any other country, and though the amount of fossil fuel is finite, there is still plenty left to cause more irreversible damage to the atmosphere.

read more....

excerpt:

“The damage has been done, but the longer people wait to do something about it, the more severe it is going to get,” Kennel said. “We need to limit CO2 to twice or three times the current level.”

BC

masher

04-18-2005, 06:52 PM

> ""Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. " (from above article)..."

This gets more amusing with each post. Lets look at the source of your article. It was written by the "Center for Health and the Global Environment". Their own admitted mission statement is not to conduct research, but to (I quote from their site), "to promote a wider understanding of the [effects of humans on the environment] among physicians, scientists, policy-makers, and the general public...and to motivate them to protect it".

In other words, not a dispassionate research organization, but an admitted propaganda machine. Still, that doesn't neccesarily mean they're wrong, right? Let's look at the credentials of the study's author: Paul Epstein. Dr. Epstein isn't a Ph.D. researcher...he's an MD only. His training is in "medical tropical health", though for the last 15 years he's done nothing but make write "bulletins" on how people are destroying the environment, along with media appearances and press releases to support them. His latest claim to fame? A paper trying to link the active 2004 hurricane season to global warming, despite the fact this flies in the face of both fact and academic mainstream opinion.

Still again, it doesn't mean he's wrong about THIS topic, does it? Before we reply, lets look at what he actually said. Your media report is, unsurprisingly, an incorrect quote. His actual statement is:

Evidence for climate change effects on fungal growth and reproduction is less well documented...Long term field experiments with elevated CO2 show that some fungi - those in arbuscular micorrhizal assocations with trees -- have enhanced growth and sporulation. While more evidence is needed to establish the certainty of these effects for a wider range of fungi...

Not exactly a definitive statement, now is it? And what exactly is an "arbuscular micorrhizal" fungi. Its a fungus that forms underground...on the roots of trees. Underground. Tthe spores formed by such fungi stay in the soil, and are not normal airborne in any form. Still worse, even if they were-- there is zero research at all linking them to asthma or any widespread human allergy or health condition. There are only 150 species of such fungi, a tiny and unrepresentatitive fraction of the 11,000+ fungal-based molds we know of, much less the non-fungal molds (slime molds, water molds, etc).

The most telling statement against Epstein and his "research" paper is that he fails to cite the actual study or studies that link elevated CO2 to increased growth of these particular, specialized fungi. So I went looking myself...and immediately found several studies, all of which came to the same general conclusion. Here's an abstract of one:

We investigated the influence of elevated CO2 and soil N availability on the growth of arbuscular mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal fungi...CO2 concentration did not significantly affect percentage infection of Populus roots by mycorrhizal or non-mycorrhizal fungi. However, the extra-radical hyphal network was altered both qualitatively and quantitatively, and there was a strong interaction between CO2 and soil N availability. Under N-poor soil. conditions, elevated CO2 stimulated hyphal length by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, but depressed growth by non-mycorrhizal fungi....

I'll summarize for you in plainer english. In high-nitrogen soil, elevated CO2 doesn't tend to affect either type. In low-nitrogen soil, it tends to increase growth of one type of fungi, but retard the growth of the other type.

Oops. Poor Dr. Epstein. If he were a researcher, he'd get his hand slapped for such a boo-boo...but he's just a policy wonk, so he's free to distort at will. Interestingly enough, what do you think the "elevated CO2" level tested was? 700 ppm...far higher than one would expect to find under even the most dire global warming scenerario. Oops again.

In closing, little Paulie Epstein is a quack, with no research experience or training in the relevant fields, and with the stated goal of attempting to influence public opinion to adress his political goals. You can find his original bulletin at :http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/bulletin/Bulletinurban.pdf.

Again, feel free to disregard these facts in order to keep your Falling-Sky scenarios intact. I don't expect to reach you with the truth, but hope springs eternal to the human breast.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 07:45 PM

masher wrote:

.....This gets more amusing with each post. Lets look at the source of your article. It was written by the "Center for Health and the Global Environment". Their own admitted mission statement is not to conduct research, but to (I quote from their site), "to promote a wider understanding of the [effects of humans on the environment] among physicians, scientists, policy-makers, and the general public...and to motivate them to protect it"..... POST # 288
Hey, masher - you dropped something.

Center for Health and the Global Environment
Harvard Medical School
http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/

The mission of the Center is to understand the human health consequences of global environmental change, and to promote a wider understanding of these consequences among physicians, scientists, policymakers, the media, and the general public.

Through interdisciplinary research and its educational and policy programs, the Center seeks to help people recognize that their health is dependent on the health of the global environment, and thereby to motivate them to protect it.

***
Quit wasting our time, masher.

I lived right across the street from Harvard Medical School/School of Public Health for 16 years and I know a little bit about their programs.

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 07:53 PM

masher

04-18-2005, 08:11 PM

whitemajikman

04-18-2005, 08:12 PM

Researchers Say Increased Greenhouse Gases Cause Increased Levels of Pollen and Other Allergens

By Todd Zwillich
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Thursday, April 29, 2004

April 29, 2004 -- Rising greenhouse gas levels may be contributing to expanding rates of asthma in U.S. cities and worsening allergies in millions of urban and suburban people, a new Harvard Medical School report shows.

Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks, and industry are causing plants and molds to boost pollen and spore production. More pollen in the air is likely worsening allergic diseases such as asthma and may be to blame for the rise in cases among children, they conclude.

Soot from diesel engines may also contribute to the problem by irritating the lungs of asthma suffers, in effect weakening their defenses to the pollen, according to the report, which was funded by the Civil Society Institute, a nonprofit organization funding research in environmental and health issues.

"We are seeing some very troubling new evidence that may be exacerbating the allergies and allergens and the assaults on our respiratory systems," says Paul R. Epstein, MD, the report's co-author.

"Frankly it is a new problem that we do not know how to solve," says Epstein, who is associate director of the Center for Health and Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

Asthma on the Rise

Approximately 14 million U.S. adults and 9 million children have asthma, according to 2001 CDC figures. Childhood asthma rates have more than doubled in the U.S, since 1984 in a trend that has largely baffled scientists. Some cite improved diagnosis for the increased numbers, while others blame worsening pollution and crowded living conditions that expose children to asthma-causing cockroach dander and dust mites.

Researchers say that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) may be a main culprit. Recent studies identified CO2 levels in large U.S. cities including Phoenix and Baltimore, Md., that are at times up to 60% higher than in rural areas. Burning fossil fuel -- coal, oil and natural gases -- is the greatest contributor to the continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A 2003 study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology suggested that ragweed, which produces one of the most common allergens, is responding to the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere by producing more pollen.

"Ragweed grew faster, flowered earlier, and produced significantly greater above-ground biomass and ragweed pollen at urban locations than at rural locations," an abstract of the study concludes.

Not Just Asthma, Not Just Cities?

Experts warned that the pollen problem may spread beyond inner cities. Global atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) at the start of the industrial revolution to 379 ppm today, according to the report.

It means that ragweed could thrive in suburban and rural areas as well, says Christine Rogers, PhD, a Harvard researcher and the study's other co-author. Up to 40 million Americans suffer from ragweed allergies, also known as hay fever.

"All Americans certainly are at risk for this," says Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

But not everyone is convinced of the connection between CO2, pollen, and asthma. While CO2 has been shown to boost growth and pollen production in plants, no studies, including this Harvard report, have been able to find a hard link between increased pollen and asthma, says Bill O'Keefe, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank that regularly questions the extent humans' impact on CO2 levels and climate change.

"No one debates that CO2 levels are going up," says O'Keefe, who adds that his group receives funding from petroleum producers and industry groups. But of the link between those levels and rising rates of asthma, he says, "I think it's a stretch."

SOURCES: "Inside the Greenhouse: The Impacts of CO2 and Climate Change on Public Health in the Inner City, Center for Health and the Global Environment," Harvard Medical School, April 29, 2004. Paul R. Epstein, MD, associate director of the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Ziska L. "Cities as harbingers of climate change: common ragweed, urbanization, and public health," Journal of Allergy Clinical Immunology, February 2003; vol 111: pp 290- 295. Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director, American Public Health Association. Bill O'Keefe, president, Marshall Institute.

whitemajikman

04-18-2005, 08:15 PM

Description of Asthma....
An in-depth report on how asthma is diagnosed, treated, and managed in children.
Causes

Asthma occurs in about five million American children and each year about 200,000 are hospitalized. It is the most common chronic childhood illness. About half of all cases of asthma develop before the age of 10 and about 80% develop symptoms before age five.
General Causes of Asthma

The mechanisms that cause asthma are complex and vary among population groups and even individuals. For example, asthma in children is highly associated with allergies. However, only a minority of children with allergies has asthma, and not all cases of asthma can be explained by allergic response. Other factors, such as genetics or environmental conditions are likely to be involved in the development of asthma. Most likely several genes are involved that make a child susceptible to environmental triggers, not only allergens, but also possibly infections, dietary patterns, or air pollution. Physical factors, particularly having smaller lungs, affect the chances for later asthma.
Factors Contributing to the Worldwide Increase of Asthma

From 1980 to 1994, asthma increased 160% in American children younger than 4 years and has also dramatically risen worldwide. Experts are puzzling over the cause of this phenomenon. Among the causes and factors that are suspects in the dramatic rise in asthma in children are the following:

* One 2000 study suggested that Western dietary habits (which commonly include more fast foods and less fruits, vegetables, fiber, minerals, and other nutrients) may contribute to the development of childhood asthma.
* Some experts observe that children are spending more time indoors watching television, playing video games, or using the computer and are, therefore, overexposed to indoor allergens.
* The trend of making homes more energy-efficient may result in dust mites being trapped inside them.
* Survival rates are now higher in low-birth-weight babies, who may be more susceptible to asthma.
* Declining rates in nursing may be contributor. Breast milk contains important anti-inflammatory agents, such as omega-3 fatty acids, which might protect against asthma.
* Better hygiene and childhood immunizations have been associated with persistence of early immune factors that might increase the risk the risk for allergies and asthma. Important studies in 2002 and 2003, however, have found no association between vaccinations and allergic conditions or asthma.

The Allergic Response

Asthma and allergies often coexist, and the allergic response plays a strong role in childhood asthma. About 70% to 85% of children with asthma have allergies, with the risk being higher from seasonal allergies (e.g. hay fever) than perennial allergies (e.g., indoor allergies). (It should noted, however, that allergies are very common, and studies report that only 1% to 20% of children with allergic rhinitis actually develop asthma.)

An asthma attack can be induced or aggravated by direct irritants to the lungs. Studies indicate that the more indoor allergens a child is allergic to, the higher the risk for severe asthma. Important irritants or allergens include the following:

* Dust mites, specifically mite feces, which are coated with enzymes that contain a powerful allergen. These are the primary allergens in the home.
* Animal dander. Cats harbor significant allergens, which can even be carried on clothing; dogs usually present fewer problems.
* Molds.
* Cockroaches. Cockroaches are major asthma triggers and may reduce lung function even in people without a history of asthma.
* Pollen. An asthma attack from an allergic response to pollen is more likely to occur during extreme air changes, such as thunderstorms. Major weather changes, such as El Nino, can affect the timing of allergy seasons. For example, in 1998, when the effects of El Nino were very strong, allergy and asthma attacks were markedly increased and maximum tree pollen counts occurred two to four weeks earlier and mold counts two to three months earlier than in 1997.
* Food allergies. About 8% to 10% of children with asthma also have food allergies; these children also appear to have a high risk for very serious reactions to such foods. In infants and toddlers, allergy to eggs appears to be a major predictor of asthma.
* Fossil Fuels. Certain chemicals may trigger allergic rhinitis. Of particular note, some experts believe that refined fossil fuels, such as diesel fuel and particularly kerosene, may be important triggers for allergic rhinitis. And, in people who already have allergies or asthma, exposure to such fossil fuels may worsen symptoms.

The Allergic Response. The allergic process, called atopy, and its connection to asthma are not completely understood. It involves various airborne allergens or other triggers that set off a cascade of events in the immune system leading to inflammation and hyperreactivity in the airways. One description is as follows:

* The conductor in an orchestra of immune factors that contribute to allergies and asthma appears to be a category of white blood cells known as helper T-cells, in particular a subgroup called TH2-cells.
* TH2-cells overproduce interleukins (ILs), immune factors that are molecular members of a family called cytokines, powerful agents of the inflammatory process.
* Interleukins 4, 9, and 13, for example, may be responsible for a first-phase asthma attack. These interleukins stimulate the production and release of antibody groups known as immunoglobulin E (IgE). (People with both asthma and allergies appear to have a genetic predisposition for overproducing IgE.)
* During an allergic attack, these IgE antibodies can bind to special cells in the immune system called mast cells, which are generally concentrated in the lungs, skin, and mucous membranes. This bond triggers the release of a number of active chemicals, importantly potent molecules known as leukotrienes. These chemicals cause airway spasms, over-produce mucus, and activate nerve endings in the airway lining.
* Another cytokine, interleukin 5, appears to contribute to a late-phase inflammatory response. This interleukin attracts white blood cells known as eosinophils. These cells accumulate and remain in the airways after the first attack. They persist for weeks and mediate the release of other damaging particles that remain in the airways.

Remodeling and Causes of Persistent Asthma

Over the course of years the repetition of the inflammatory events involved in asthma can cause irreversible structural and functional changes in the airways, a process called remodeling. The remodeled airways are persistently narrow and can cause chronic asthma. Researchers are trying to determine how this process occurs:

continued.......

whitemajikman

04-18-2005, 08:16 PM

nterleukins. Some researchers are looking at potent immune factors, including interleukins 11 and 13. They have been linked to a number of processes possibly involved in remodeling, including overgrowth of cells in the smooth muscles that line the airways and scarring in the airways.

Growth Factors. Compounds known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have been observed in the airways of asthma patients. VEGF is a powerful promoter of cell growth in blood vessel linings and some researchers believe it may be major factor in remodeling.
Genetic Factors

About one-third of all persons with asthma share this condition with another member of their immediate family. Asthma may be more likely to be passed to children from the mother than from the father. Both allergies and asthma are strongly associated with hereditary factors and they share certain genetic markers, but they are not always inherited together.

Research, then, on the genetics of these conditions is confusing and difficult. Of some significant promise, researchers have identified a gene (ADAM33), which has been linked to asthma. The gene regulates one of the enzymes called metalloproteases, which are involved with the smooth muscle in the airway. A mutation of this gene, then, could play a role in airway changes that occur after inflammation.
The Complex Role of Early Infections

The role of early childhood respiratory and intestinal infections is very complex. Viral respiratory infections certainly worsen existing asthma but the most common ones are unlikely to be causes of childhood asthma. In fact, early respiratory and intestinal infections may offer some protection against asthma.

Early Respiratory Infections as Causes of Asthma. Studies have found little evidence to suggest that most respiratory infections are important causes of asthma in children, except in certain cases. An important exception is the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has been implicated in the development of asthma. RSV is the major viral cause of infant pneumonia. (Other respiratory infections may play an important role in many instances of adult-onset asthma.)

Common Respiratory Infections Worsen Asthma. It should be noted that even if the most common respiratory viruses, especially those that cause colds and flus, do not cause asthma in children, they can worsen asthma in children who have it.Rhinovirus, or the common cold virus, for example, has been reported to be the most common infectious agent associated with asthma attacks. In one study, it was associated with 61% of asthma exacerbations in children. Some research suggests that colds promote inflammation in patients with existing asthma and increase the intensity of airway responsiveness for weeks.

The Hygiene Theory: Early Infections as Protection Against Asthma. An increasingly important theory blames the dramatic increase in asthma on the reductions in childhood infections that have occurred with modern hygiene and antibiotic use. The basic theory rests on the idea that infections stimulate production of specific immune factors called TH1 cells. As these cells build up, they replace other immune factors called TH2 cells, which react to allergens--a less serious threat to the body. Without infections to stimulate the production of the TH1 infection fighters, then the TH2 allergen fighters are not replaced and they persist at high levels, making the growing child more susceptible to allergies and asthma.

A number of different studies support this theory:

* Some studies suggest that being part of a large family or attending day care increases the risk for early respiratory infections but reduces the risk of childhood asthma. The occasional cold, then, may be protective.
* In a 2002 study, researchers measured levels of bacterial byproducts called endotoxins in the mattress dust of 812 children. Those with the highest levels had an 80% lower rates in allergies and asthma.
* A 2001 Swedish study further found a strong association between allergy development and the absence of certain beneficial bacteria (called probiotics) carried in the infants intestines. Infants who were born in more hygienic environments tended to lack these bacteria. Antibiotic over-use and modern hygiene may specifically be reducing these helpful organisms. (Probiotics can be obtained in active yogurt cultures and in supplements, which are being studied for protection.)

The standard vaccinations against serious childhood infections, according to important studies in 2002 and 2003, pose no risk for asthma. One of the studies even reported some lower risk for asthma and allergies in the second and third years after vaccinations. Infections killed thousands of children every year before immunization became widespread. Asthma, although serious, is rarely fatal in children. No one should stop giving their children vaccinations against childhood killers.
Other Contributing Medical Conditions

GERD. At least half of asthmatic patients also have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the cause of heartburn. It is not entirely clear which condition causes the other or whether they are both due to common factors.

http://adam.about.com/reports/000005_1.htm?terms=asthma

WMM

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by whitemajikman:

.....April 29, 2004 -- Rising greenhouse gas levels may be contributing to expanding rates of asthma in U.S. cities and worsening allergies in millions of urban and suburban people, a new Harvard Medical School report shows.....

.....Recent studies identified CO2 levels in large U.S. cities including Phoenix and Baltimore, Md., that are at times up to 60% higher than in rural areas.....
The statistics on pediatric asthma rates in major urban areas have been rising for over five years now. There are long-term studies in progress in many east coast cities the purpose of which is to identify as many cases of chronic pediatric asthma as possible and get these kids into comprehensive treatment to improve their lives.

***
AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 18, 2005 - 11:15pm EDT
CO2 - 410 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 10:19 PM

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 10:33 PM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 19, 2005 - 1:15am EDT
CO2 - 428 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

foot_soldier

04-18-2005, 11:13 PM

AIRMAP New England

Thompson Farm, NH

Real-Time Air Quality Data
April 19, 2005 - 2:00am EDT
CO2 - 422 ppmv

http://airmap.unh.edu/data/data.html?site=AIRMAPTF

masher

04-19-2005, 09:31 AM

I worked in two Harvard-affiliated bio-medical labs for 13 of those 16 years doing specialized surgery and cell culture and running protein purification protocols....

So you were a lab tech. And apparently you feel this gives you some academic credentials to comment on mycological research, allergens, asthmatic responses, or Epstein the quack?

Enough said.

But you've said nothing at all. On any relevant topic, that is. You've failed to counter the statements that Epstein is not a Ph.D'd researcher, that he has no training in the relevant fields, that his "study" uses a type of fungi that doesn't leave airborne spores and isn't even all allergen vector at all, or that half of even these particular fungi show retarded growth

All you've done is attempt to impress us with the fact that you were once a lab tech in a location near Epstein. The very fact that you feel this is relevant is ludicrous, and it demonstrates the logical fallacy of your entire position.

But hey, we're all suitably impressed to know you "keep up with things" at the lab. Rofl.

foot_soldier

04-19-2005, 10:27 AM

I’m not trying to “impress” anybody. I’m just pointing out that I have more than a passing interest in the issues being presented in this thread and that you’re not dealing with idiots here.

You’re quite the little screw-turner, aren’t you? Interesting that you suddenly appear on this forum just as a certain other party has been given a 10-day “vacation” by the forum moderator. Coincidence? I think not.

I don’t know what anyone else here intends to do but I will be ignoring you from now on. It’s one thing to be in disagreement with other posters. It’s entirely another to insult and degrade them at every opportunity. I think we’ve had enough of that here, thank you.

masher

04-19-2005, 11:30 AM

> "I’m not trying to “impress” anybody..."

You're succeeding admirably, then.

> "I’m just pointing out that I have more than a passing interest in the issues being presented in this thread..."

Unfortunately, having "an interest" in a subject doesn't make you an expert.

> "Coincidence? I think not...."

A nice bit of innuendo. If you're lucky, it will keep anyone from noticing you have again failed utterly and completely to rebut (or even to address) any of the points I brought up.

> "I don’t know what anyone else here intends to do but I will be ignoring you from now on..."

Well, since you've already been ignoring all the facts I've presented, I don't expect your decision here to make any great difference.

Boomer Chick

04-19-2005, 02:53 PM

Boomer Chick -

I'm glad you like the flower. It's a Mariposa Lily and you can see it here along with some of the other incredible flowers people have been photographing in central and southern Arizona this month:

Desert USA
http://www.desertusa.com/wildflo/az.html

:D It certainly looked like a desert flower, what with the rocky soil around it and greyish stem and leaves. The Maripose Lily, huh? Pretty and BRIGHT little thang!

We saw a special the other night on the blooming of Death Valley this year, due to such prolific rain! Naturalists are going crazy this year over the blooming deserts! Some seeds lie dormant for 10 and 20 years and when just the right amount of rain falls, they bloom in the race to reproduce their kind. They expect the blooming all the way through the summer!

Thanks for the pics!

Boomer Chick

04-19-2005, 03:15 PM

Hey, FS ! You impress me! Hehehe! If that's any consolation from the Jay clone, recently appearing like a cloned Jay-sheep! Hi! Jay!

Speaking of clones, did you read about the male race horse that was recently cloned? Darn, wish I had kept the link or remembered where I ran across it. The little guy really looks like he has potential. Guess a gelding can reproduce afterall! :p

I want to share what I learned on the Harvard site. Yes, there are interests involved globally on the site and they include a study with Evan Mills at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and some Swiss scientists as well as the Harvard observations and studies. The main economic interest illiciting concern over climate change regarding this organization happens to be........ the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Since the insurance industry globally concerns health, property, and life.... the statistics and the implications of climate change they study are based on credible information. Why would they fudge statistics? They want to prepare for increased losses through the obvious increase in weather-related catastrophes and claims. It makes sense, really, economic sense for them. The insurance industry is one of the biggest industries on the face of the planet and although we bemoan it, and rankle at its mere mention, it does offer protection if and when the claims are handled ethically. That's not the subject here, of course. The subject relates to the motivation and funding for the studies themselves. I find nothing wrong with insurance companies curious and studious as to what to expect in the overall global situation regarding their industry. The overall conclusion comes to an ethical grounding in their suggestions which involve mitigation of possible man-made contributions, increased non-fossil fuel based energy grids, and adaptive measures on all fronts which will mitigate damage to health, life, and property. Naturally, they don't like natural catastrophes or man-made or influenced ones regarding health, so, although motivated by the bottom line, like any business or industry, they serve the human populations and the biosphere in their proposed healthy environmental strategies.

The pdf. is 25 pages long, so I just included some of it:

http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/policy/policy.html

http://www.ruschlikon.net/INTERNET/rschwebp.nsf/(UID)/573063237377D464C1256EA1002CB7ED/$FILE/Executive%20Summary%20May%2027th.pdf

Carbon Dioxide and Aeroallergens
Allergic diseases are the sixth leading cause of chronic illness in the U.S., affecting
roughly 17% of the population, 6.3 million children. There were 4,487 deaths in 2000 due

to asthma and the asthma cost the health care system about $18 billion annually.
Ragweed pollen production is stimulated by carbon dioxide and the early arrival of spring
with climate change has advanced the allergy season. This is a global problem, severest
in the inner cities, where high levels of CO2 under domes accompanying the “heat island
effect” boost pollen and mold production. As CO2 levels continue to rise, this problem
can only increase. In addition, high levels of ground-level ozone (photochemical smog)
damage the lung sacs and cause asthma, and more smog is formed from tailpipe
emissions during heatwaves. Diesel particles, which help deliver aeroallergens deep into
the lungs and present them to sensitized immune cells, add to the allergic phenomena and
respiratory illness.

Emerging Infectious Diseases: Human
Malaria
Malaria is highly sensitive to climatic factors. Temperature affects its range via biting
rates and the maturation of parasites inside mosquitoes, and heavy rain (and drought
indirectly – see above) creates breeding sites. This case study reviews the General
Circulation Models and malaria transmission dynamic models that form the basis for
climate scenario projections. Projected changes include an expansion in latitude and
altitude, and, in some regions, a longer season during which malaria circulate. Such
changes could dramatically increase the number of people at risk for malaria.
Zoonotic Emerging Infectious Diseases: Wildlife, Livestock and
Humans
West Nile virus
Warm winters, spring droughts and summer heatwaves amplify the bird-mosquito cycle
of WNV. The disease has spread to 230 species of animals (including horses) and 138
spp. of birds, and WNV is spreading in the Americas. Lives have been lost, neurological
sequelae are common and the blood supply has been affected. Mortality of birds of prey
could have ecological ripples, giving rise to rodent-borne diseases, and reduction in bird
populations can affect mosquito predation, pollination, agriculture and can detract from
tourism.

Zoonotic Emerging Infectious Diseases: Wildlife, Livestock and
Humans
West Nile virus
Warm winters, spring droughts and summer heatwaves amplify the bird-mosquito cycle
of WNV. The disease has spread to 230 species of animals (including horses) and 138
spp. of birds, and WNV is spreading in the Americas. Lives have been lost, neurological
sequelae are common and the blood supply has been affected. Mortality of birds of prey
could have ecological ripples, giving rise to rodent-borne diseases, and reduction in bird
populations can affect mosquito predation, pollination, agriculture and can detract from
tourism.
Nipah virus
Nipah – a newly emerging virus – is carried by fruit bats. Extensive fires in Southeast
Asia accompanying the El Nino-associated drought in 1997/98 removed food sources for
bats, which were displaced onto pig farms. Over 100 people died and the pig industry
was devastated. Nipah virus re-emerged in Bangladesh in 2003 and 2004.
Note: Bats are most likely the reservoir for Ebola virus in Africa.

Rodent-borne diseases
Rodents are vectors and reservoirs of disease -- hantaviruses, arenaviruses, Lyme-infected
ticks, babesioisis, leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis and plague -- and are associated
with most emerging infectious viruses and hemorrhagic disorders. Rodents are also
prolific consumers of growing and stored grains. Their populations respond to a complex
set of ecological dynamics, but droughts interrupted by floods often boost their
populations and drive them from underground burrows. The economic implications of
rodents as agricultural pests are well documented in the U.S. and they cause extensive
losses and disease in Southern Africa.
III. Diseases of Natural Systems
Agricultural Pests and Pathogens

continued...

Boomer Chick

04-19-2005, 03:18 PM

Soybean rust and others
Diseases are emerging and resurging in all major food crops. Crop pests, pathogens and
weeds are affecting food sources for humans and livestock. Warming expands the
potential range of plant pests and pathogens; floods foster fungal growth, nematodes and
rodent population explosions; and droughts encourage aphids, locust and whiteflies that
inject viruses (see next case study). We can project that warming and extreme weather
events, plus the associated pests, pathogens and weeds will take an increasing toll on
agriculture. The economic implications include crop losses, trade in foodstuffs, food
security and international conflict.

Potato Blight
This study from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research in Peru
uses climate models and projects significant losses from potato blight (Phytophthora, the
fungus that caused the Irish potato famine) with warming and increased climate
variability. Overall, climate change is expected to reduce potato yield by around 20
percent and to increase the severity of pests and diseases, which in turn will require
additional use of pesticides. These losses can affect nutritional status, human health and
mortality, and food security primarily in developing countries.
Habitat -- Terrestrial

Forest Pests and Pathogens

Sudden Oak Death

Phytophthora, molds are now a serious problem for trees in California. Multiple stresses
weaken the trees so that these opportunistic agents can gain a foothold. This disease
could spread via nursery plants to other states. Other pests and pathogens threatening
forests include the bark beetles in the U.S. west and the Woolly adelgid aphid-like bug

infesting Eastern hemlock pines in New England. Continued stresses from warming and
weather extremes have enormous implications for timber, water supplies and quality, and
the risks of fires and mudslides.
Water quality and availability
Water quality and quantity is a function of withdrawals, aquifer supplies and changes in
the hydrological cycle. This analysis examines climate models for its impacts on
snowpack and precipitation regimes, and the potential effects of climate change on water
resources, with case studies from the U.S., Peru and Sweden.

Habitat -- Marine

Coral reefs

Threats to coral reefs worldwide constitute the gravest symptom of global climate
change. Coral reefs are in danger worldwide from warming-induced bleaching and
multiple emerging diseases. Reefs are also becoming reservoirs for microbial pathogens
that can contaminate the food chain, and are with associated human health risks from
direct contact with microbe-laden coastal waters. Degradation of refs will lead to the loss
of fisheries, shoreline barriers, salt water intrusion and salinization of ground-water
(causing hypertension and agricultural losses), property losses, destruction of tourist-based
economies (shoreline hotels and recreation), and loss of livelihoods, and will
generate environmental refugees from abandoned island states and low-lying coastal
areas.

Bivalves
Chesapeake Bay oysters have been decimated by two parasitic diseases – Dermo and
MSX – and the diseases have spread northward to New York and New England with each
warm winter. Bivalves are filter feeders, thus cleansers of estuaries and bays of excess
nutrients and algae. Thus, reduced populations of bivalves enhance eutrophication and
further set the stage for harmful algal blooms (red tides) and associated biotoxins. The
economic implications include loss of a food source; emerging algal biotoxins; impacts
on fisheries; losses of livelihoods, fisheries, tourism and allied (food) industries.
Red Tides and Dead Zones (to follow)

Part II. GLOBAL TRENDS IN WEATHER-RELATED LOSS
EVENTS
Prepared by
Evan Mills
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
The number of weather-related disasters has been rising (Figures 1 and 2), as have the
costs (Figure 3).

Risk-Spreading and the Role of Insurers
The economic costs of recovering from and adapting to weather-related risks are spread
among governments (domestically and via international aid), insurers, and individuals.
The insurance sector is playing an increasing role in this equation (larger today than that
of international aid), and is the only segment with a clearly growing tendency to pay for
consistently growing losses. There is an intrinsic logic for fostering greater insurance
involvement in climate change risk management, as loss-prevention and recovery are
already integral to their business.
Most major forms of insurance experience some degree of vulnerability to the impacts of
climate change, including property, marine, health/life, business interruption, crop loss,
environmental liability, and even
political risk insurance.
The global insurance market
represented $2.6 trillion in
premiums in 2002, or
approximately 8 percent of global
GDP. To put this in perspective,
the insurance industry’s revenues
make it equivalent to the fourth
largest country in the world (by
GDP). Total premiums in the
emerging markets represented
approximately $270 billion/year
or 10 percent of that market, with
Ten Percent of $2.6T Global Insurance Market is in
Developing Countries and Economies in Transition

Source: Swiss Re, Economic Research & Consulting, Wigma No. 8/2003 [Swiss Re (2003a)]l. Includes
property/casualty and life/health insurance.

Boomer Chick

04-19-2005, 03:23 PM

growth rates often dramatically higher than those in the industrial world (twice as high,
on average, over the 1980-2000 time period), and often exceeding national GDP growth
rates. At current growth rates, emerging markets will represent half of world insurance
premiums by the middle of this century. Approximately 40 percent of current-day
premiums are non-life (property-casualty insurance), with the balance life-health. The
insured share of total losses from natural disasters has risen from a negligible level in the
1950s to approximately 20% of the total today (and up to 50% in some years).

Insurance
market conditions vary regionally.

The economic costs of weather-related events are already high; from 1980 through 2003,
the costs totaled $1 trillion globally, averaging over $22 billion annually each for
industrialized and developing countries, respectively, with significant upward trends in
recent decades, far more so for weather-related losses than other loss categories.
Insurance payments associated with these losses are four-times that of international aid.
Over this period, insurance covered 4% of total costs in low-income countries, and 40%
in high-income countries. A disproportionate amount of insurance payouts arise from
storm events, owing in large part to the tendency of flood risks (another major risk) to be
insured by governments rather than the private sector.

The potential for new patterns of average as well as extreme events—whether due to
natural variability or human-induced climate change—stands to raise demand for
insurance, while increasing uncertainty and challenging the industry’s ability and
willingness to assume or reasonably price these new risks. Sustainable development can
contribute to managing and maintaining the insurability of these risks and thereby reduce
the need for individuals and domestic governments to absorb the costs.

By pooling financial reserves to pay for weather-related damages to property, morbidity,
and mortality, the global insurance market provides considerable adaptive capacity.
Moreover, the economic consequences of extreme weather events are becoming
increasingly globalized, largely due to the multi-national structure of the insurance and
reinsurance markets, which pools and integrates the costs of risk across many countries
and regions. Foreign insurer’s premium growth in emerging markets averaged over 20
percent per year through the nineties. In the late 1990s, the U.S. alone was collecting
approximately $40 billion in premiums for policies placed in other countries.

page 25 of pdf -- great schematic of interrelated factors ] These are only a few of the areas addressed in the schematic including an illustrative Venn diagram! Ha!

CONSEQUENCES
Diseases
Water
Food
Forests
Fisheries
Adverse ecological events
Chronic Smog and
Brown hazes
Altered H2O cycle
Rainforest function
Incr. pollen and molds

Global Environmental Change
Atmosphere
Biosphere – species composition,
abundance, distribution, function
Habitat – terrestrial & marine
Cryosphere
Oceans
Urbanization
Population & demographics

CASE STUDIES
Heatwaves, malaria, WNV,
Nipah, Forest pests, Ag P&P,
Coral and Bivalve Diseases,
Flooding, Drought, Storms,
SLR

***

Even the insurance industry can be a good influence ! YUCK! I dislike even saying it ! :p

foot_soldier

04-19-2005, 03:31 PM

Boomer Chick wrote:

.....The insurance industry is one of the biggest industries on the face of the planet and although we bemoan it, and rankle at its mere mention, it does offer protection if and when the claims are handled ethically. That's not the subject here, of course.....
On the contrary - heh heh.

In my opinion you are in fact getting right down to the crux of the matter insofar as human beings might actually begin to make and *understand* a few connections here.

Just sticking my head in the door. Back later.

Boomer Chick

04-19-2005, 03:34 PM

Just love those Japanese innovators!

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20050419wo71.htm

Japan researchers look to seaweed in fight against global warming

Jun Sugimori Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer

A group of private and academic research institutes is studying the viability of tackling the gargantuan project of building a seaweed plantation in the Pacific Ocean to absorb carbon dioxide and produce biofuel.

The group, which includes Mitsubishi Research Institute, Tokyo University and Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, is studying the viability of the plantation, which they hope could be vital in the fight against global warming.

In the atmosphere of primordial Earth, the percentage of carbon dioxide was much higher than it is today, and the percentage of oxygen was much lower.

The first living organisms--blue-green algae, green algae and other species of seaweed--converted carbon dioxide into oxygen through internal photosynthesis. As a result, the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere eventually rose to the level it is at today.

Prof. Masahiro Notoya of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, said: "Petroleum was originally fossilized seaweed and other creatures. Therefore, it makes sense to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air with the help of seaweed and use the seaweed to produce fuel."

The plan is to place 100 floating fishing nets in the Pacific Ocean, each measuring 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers. Seaweed such as sea grape, which can reach 20 meters in length in a year, will grow from the nets.

If various species of seaweed can be harvested so that at least one of them is growing at any given time throughout the year, each of the nets could produce 270,000 tons of seaweed a year, according to estimates.

Seaweed discharges hydrogen and carbon monoxide gases when it is exposed to extremely heated water vapor. Methanol and other biofuel can be synthesized from the gases.

Because the biofuel is made from carbon hydride, which is created from carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, no extra carbon dioxide is discharged into the atmosphere when the fuel is burned. In this sense the fuel holds a very great advantage over fossil fuels.

Another benefit of the nets is that concentrations of seaweed contain abundant plankton and attract fish looking for spawning grounds. This in turn will increase fishery resources.

"Absorbing carbon dioxide is only a small function the seaweed will serve. By growing seaweed, we can make nature richer," Notoya said.

One of the main problems the institutes face is where to put the nets. Strong currents, such as the Kuroshio and the Oyashio, run off the Japanese archipelago and the nets could easily be swept away.

The seas off the coast of the Sanriku region offer a possible solution. The current there runs in a 300- to 350-kilometer circle. If the area is chosen, it may be possible to control the nets by tracking them with the Global Positioning System.

The group is going to research details of currents off the Sanriku region with observation buoys next summer to confirm the viability of the project.

Tokyo University Prof. Toshio Yamagata and his team have developed a system to predict sea currents three months ahead of time from water temperatures observed by satellite.

By combining Yamagata's findings with the GPS technology, it would be possible to predict and adjust future positions of the nets.

But other hurdles stand in the way of the project. It's size alone might be enough to scuttle the plan,which calls for 100 of the huge nets floating on the sea, and a ship to produce the biofuel. The whole system will measure 120 kilometers by 120 kilometers.

Discussions regarding the laws of the sea and other international laws is essential to prevent the project from obstructing the safe passage of ships through the area.

It is also necessary to carefully examine what effects the project might have on the ecosystem.

But to avoid the disastrous effects of global warming, man needs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 50 percent in the future.

To achieve the goal, solutions must be offered by science, as well as people changing their ways of thinking and lifestyles.

There are ongoing studies to separate carbon dioxide emitted from thermal power plants which is then stored underground, and to have carbon dioxide absorbed into sea water.

Yoshishige Katori, one of leading researchers of the huge seaweed farm project and senior counselor at Mitsubishi Research Institute, said: "Each of the technologies to be used is not unusually advanced. But combining them for a specific purpose can contribute to efforts to prevent global warming.

"To make the project a reality, we want to prove the possibility of the plan and present a vision of a bright future for mankind," he said.

***

BTW, on google searching, you can receive the latest updates on the search right in your inbox. I put in a search for "global warming" and receive the updated news daily, usually at night, which is when I requested the service. It's free. Google isn't that great, but various articles do come in. More scientific ones, of course, have to be researched on other data bases.

whitemajikman

04-19-2005, 06:32 PM

"Quit wasting our time, masher. I lived right across the street from Harvard Medical School/School of Public Health for 16 years.."

Oh my god, this is too good to be true. You're an expert in the field, because you lived across the street from the Harvard Medical School? I can't believe you managed to type that out without spraining a finger. Did you stop after each paragraph to give the propeller on your hat a little spin?

Just because Paulie Epstein says he's a researcher doesn't make it true. He admits to pushing a political agenda, and he claims to be an expert on everything from ragweed to hurricane formation and ocean currents to the chemistry of the stratosphere. He's got quack written all over him....and even if he didn't, it took all of five minutes to debunk these particular fear-mongering statements on mold growth.

EAT THIS......

MASHER.......

IT"S CALLED TRUTH.......

Oh and By The way......Maybe You should E-mail him.....

To Share Some Of Your Concerns.......

I'm Sure He Will Listen.....

For at least 60 seconds......Before he catches on to your game.......

P.S

Just as We have proved you wrong twice..........

Here is another one for good Measure........

Paul R. Epstein M.D., M.P.H
Associate Director
Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School
paul_epstein@hms.harvard.edu

Paul R. Epstein, MD, MPH is Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School (http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge), and is a medical doctor trained in tropical public health. Paul has worked in medical, teaching and research capacities in Africa, Asia and Latin America and, in 1993, coordinated an eight-part series on Health and Climate Change for the British medical journal, Lancet. He has worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to assess the health impacts of climate change and develop health applications of climate forecasting and remote sensing.

Visit the Center's media page for appearances of Dr. Epstein and other Center staff in the news. Selected journal articles are below.

Selected Journal Articles
Epstein, P.R., Diaz, H.F., Elias, S., Grabherr, G., Graham, N.E., Martens, W.J.M., Mosley-Thompson, E., Susskind, J. Biological and physical signs of climate change: focus on mosquito-borne disease. Bull American Meteorological Society 1998:78:409-417.

Epstein, P.R. Climate and health. Science. 1999;v.285, n.5426: 347-348.

Harvell CD, Kim K, Burkholder JM, Colwell RR, Epstein PR, Grimes J, Hofmann EE, Lipp E, Osterhaus ADME, Overstreet R, Porter JW, Smith GW, Vasta G. Diseases in the ocean: emerging pathogens, climate links, and anthropogenic factors. Science 1999: 285:1505-1510.

Epstein, P.R., Is global warming harmful to health. Scientific American. 2000, August: 36-43.

Epstein PR, Defilippo C. West Nile virus and drought. Global Change & Human Health 2001; 2: 105-107.

Epstein PR. Climate change and infectious disease: stormy weather ahead? Epidemiology 2002 Jul;13(4):373-5.

Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Yang XB, Epstein PR, Chivian E. Climate change and extreme weather events: Implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Global Change & Human Health 2001; 2: 90-104.

Wayne P, Foster S, Connolly J, Bazzaz F, Epstein P. Production of allergenic pollen by ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) is increased in CO2-enriched atmospheres. Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology 2002;8:279-282.

Epstein PR. Biodiversity, climate change and emerging infectious diseases. In: A.A. Aguirre, R.S. Ostfeld, G.M. Tabor, C. House, M.C. Pearl, 2002: Conservation Medicine: Ecological Health in Practice. Oxford University Press, NY, pp 27-39.

Epstein PR, Chivian E, Frith K. Emerging diseases threaten conservation. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, Number 10, August 2003: A506-A507.

http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/epstein.html

NOW MASHER........

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO POST YOUR CREDENTIALS......

That Way We Can Compare YOU TO HIM.......

oh and one other thing leave Foot Soldier Alone.........She Doesn't deserve that Kind Of treatment........

It Has Taken Me Quite Awhile To realize That I Was Wrong To Criticize her....In The original "MOTHER NATURE"........Thread........

She Now Has My Full respect.......

And The sad thing Is That I Have Never apologized To Her For My Prior Actions.....

FOOT SOLDIER.......

I AM TRULY SORRY For Treating You Like Dirt.......

You Did nothing To Deserve My treatment Of You......

WMM

foot_soldier

04-19-2005, 09:50 PM

whitemajikman wrote:

.....I AM TRULY SORRY.....
You wouldn't be pulling my chain there, would you?

(Just kidding.)

<schnark>

So.

Excellent. Things are definitely looking up in here.

Best Regards...

:cool:

foot_soldier

04-19-2005, 10:10 PM

Boomer Chick, yes I did hear about the cloned race horse but haven't had a chance to follow up on the story. I'm not really into the cloning trajectory to be honest about it. It makes me very uneasy to have too much of life's mystery done away with.

Be that as it may, here are two articles - I didn't know the Italians had succeeded with this back in 2003:

August 6, 2003
First cloned horse unveiled in Italy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3129441.stm

Italian scientists have succeeded in creating the world's first horse clone.

The foal, called Prometea, was born 10 weeks ago and appears to be perfectly healthy.

To create Prometea, scientists took a skin cell from an adult mare which was fused with an empty equine egg.

The mare then acted as a surrogate mother for Prometea - so giving birth to a carbon copy of herself.

The development is reported in the journal Nature. It means scientists have now cloned sheep, mice, cattle, goats, rabbits, cats, pigs and mules. The mule, called Idaho Gem, was born earlier this year in the US..... (continued)

And here's the recent offering:

April 17, 2005
Italian scientists say they've cloned second horse, this time from gelding
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3138245

ROME — Italian scientists said they have created their second cloned horse — produced from the DNA of a thoroughbred Arabian gelding race champion.

The foal, named Pieraz-Cryozootech-Stallion, was born Feb. 25, weighed 93 pounds and was "in excellent health," said scientists at the Laboratory of Reproductive Technology in the northern Italian city of Cremona.

The young stallion was cloned from Pieraz, retired to a stable in the United States after winning world endurance championships in 1994 and 1996. The lab said the new cloned horse would not compete, but as a stallion would be able to pass on its genes.

The laboratory classified the birth as a breakthrough that paves the way for preserving the lines of the best race horses by creating clones that can breed.

"This new approach opens the possibility of conserving the genetic inheritance of exceptional horses whose genetic heritage gets lost because they are castrated," the laboratory said in a statement Thursday..... (continued)

foot_soldier

04-19-2005, 10:14 PM

Re: the Harvard site:

There's some excellent material on that site!

This looks good, too:

September 20, 2004
Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change: Implications for Human Health
http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/policy/Briefings/ewebrief.html

masher

04-19-2005, 10:57 PM

> EAT THIS...... MASHER.......IT"S CALLED TRUTH.......

Lol, are you for real? Your clownish bleats of triumph are as amusing as they pathetically inaccurate. I do commend you on your "astute" discovery of Epstein's bio...a single click away from link I already posted. In fact, I've already read the exact bio you posted. I even commented upon it, which a person less comprehensionally challenged would have already realized.

Now, shall we dissect Epstein's bio, which you so graciously posted in entirety?

> Paul R. Epstein, MD, MPH....

No Ph.D. No advanced training in research beyond the undergraduate level. No advanced medical degree. A simple MD, and an MPH, Masters in "Public Health"...which consists primarily of classes in policy and health administration issues.

> Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment....

Director of a group whose admitted purpose is to influence public opinion in favor of environmental action. Another serious strike against his "research" credentials and his desire for unbiased truth.

> Visit the Center's media page for appearances of Dr. Epstein and other Center staff in the news...

As I said, Epstein's career consists mostly of media appearances and self-promotion. He doesn't do research; he has no background, training, or academic credentials in the relevant fields. He's a policy wonk, not a scientist.

> Selected Journal Articles....

This is the most amusing part, as I suspect you feel that "Scientific American" or "Environmental Health Perspectives" are top-tier scientific research journals. Admitted, "Epidemiology" (the official journal of the ISEE) and a couple others are valid...but its all of five minutes work to look up Epstein's actual contributions here, and realize they aren't research submissions, but commentary or policy-related analysis of the "implications" of someone else's research. The only actual research listed here that Epstein appears to have done himself is one paper on ragweed pollination, in which he grew some ragweed under extremely high CO2 levels (far higher than even the most dire global warming scenario predicts), and makes the astute observation that they grew faster and produced more pollen. Halt the presses! Your average Junior High science fair project is more astute than this.

Suspiciously absent is ANY research on mycology, the study of protista or fungi, allergen-producing molds, or their effects on human health.

Most amusing of all is the fact that Epstein's bio-- and my skillful demolition of it-- are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Since all of you short-term memory deficient buffoons have forgotten what that issue is, I'll remind you. A somewhat paraphrased summary of it is below,

A: "The sky is falling! Increased CO2 levels will make mold grow like mad and we'll all die of allergies"
B: "Poppycock...CO2 doesn't promote mold growth, they require oxygen primarily"
A: "Why...why...some need very little oxygen! And some require none at all!"
B: "So? They still don't grow faster with higher CO2 levels".
A: "Wrong! Why Sir Epstein himself found one that did!"
B: "(checking reference). Why so he did. Too bad it lives underground, doesn't cause allergies anyway, and only grows faster in nitrogen-poor soil. Oh, and half the ones he found grew slower under higher CO2 levels anyway".
A: "HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE SIR EPSTEIN! I LIVED ACROSS THE STREET FROM HARVARD FOR 18 YEARS! ENOUGH SAID! "

Such depths of ignorance and human folly would sadden me, were I not already innoculated to it through long exposure.

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:32 AM

Well Then Masher....

Start Mashing......

And we Will See If What You Have To say Has any relevance....

But be forewarned..... you have a long road ahead of you......in trying to debunk......Epstein.....

Climate, Ecology, and Human Health

By Paul R. Epstein

Epidemics are like sign-posts from which the statesman of stature can read that a disturbance has occurred in the development of his nation--that not even careless politics can overlook.

Dr. Rudolf Virchow, 1848

There are many determinants of health and well-being, and they can all interact with one another. Human biological and psychological factors come into play on a personal level, but ecological and global systems are also involved, as are economics and access to health care, which determine the social vulnerabilities to disease. Recently, our chief means of controlling infections--antibiotics and insecticides-- have themselves become a source of new, resistant microbes and disease carriers, and the growing number of people with malnutrition or depressed immune systems have helped select and disseminate these emerging organisms.

Environmental conditions, interacting with the biology of disease agents, can exert profound effects. Changes in how land is used affect the distribution of disease carriers, such as rodents or insects, while climate influences their range, and affects the timing and intensity of outbreaks. In this review we examine how our health is influenced by the interplay of social conditions, local environmental factors, and global changes. The discussion focuses primarily on the environment, for--given its scale and pace of change--this sometimes forgotten determinant seems destined to play an ever-increasing role in determining disease patterns in the future.

At any time and in any age, human health tends to follow trends in both social systems and the natural environment. In periods of relative stability--measured in the number and distribution of people, their use of natural resources, and their generation of wastes--natural, biological controls over pests and disease organisms (or pathogens) can function efficiently. In times of accelerated change--often associated with economic or political instability, natural disasters, or war--infectious diseases can spread. Today, an increasingly unstable climate, the accelerating loss of species, and growing economic inequities challenge the resilience and resistance of natural systems. Acting together, these elements of change are contributing to the emergence, resurgence, and redistribution of infectious disease on a global scale (Fig. 1).

An expected redistribution of infectious disease is but one of the biological consequences of global environmental change. In some regions of the globe, warming may at first appear beneficial. Plants may be fertilized by warmth and moisture, an earlier spring, and more carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen. But warming and increased CO2 can also stimulate microbes and their carriers, and added heat can destabilize weather patterns.

The consequences for agricultural pests and crop yields, for the health of livestock and fisheries, and for human illness may be significant; and the costs of epidemics can cascade through economies and ripple through societies. The resurgence of infectious diseases thus poses threats to food and biological security, and to economic development.

Water, food, and health are among our most basic needs. These requirements are also interrelated, and environmental changes now underway threaten all three. Maintaining health demands clean water, safe food, and unpolluted air, and in the modern world the latter depends upon clean energy. In the past, widespread diseases that affect multiple continents, called pandemics, have often precipitated social disruption and major shifts in human settlements. In other, more productive instances, the resurgence of infectious disease has inspired social and environmental reforms that addressed the underlying causes. What will be our course this time?
Background

A recent report of the United Nations' World Health Organization records that, since 1976, thirty diseases have emerged that are new to medicine. The reappearance of old diseases--once thought under control--is of equal concern: Drug-resistant tuberculosis, exacerbated by HIV/AIDS, now causes three million deaths annually, while childhood diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles--which are also transmitted person- to-person--are also on the rise, particularly in those places where social systems have recently changed. Malaria, dengue (or "breakbone fever," a severe, sometimes-deadly tropical disease transmitted by mosquitoes and accompanied by headache, rash, and severe joint pain), yellow fever, cholera, and a number of rodent-borne viruses are also appearing with increased frequency. The distribution of the latter diseases, that rely on animals or water as vehicles (or vectors) for transmission (Figure 2), reflect both environmental and social change. In 1995, U.S. mortality from infectious disease attributed to causes other than HIV/AIDS rose 22 percent above the levels of fifteen years before, and 58 percent in all.
Malaria as an example

feMalaria is an ancient, mosquito-borne disease that played a significant role in the history of Africa. For centuries, the presence of sickle cell and other types of red blood cell "anomalies" limited the impact of malaria on native Africans. The disease also served to ward off foreign colonizers, who lacked these evolved defenses, and helped deter deep penetration of the continent until the latter part of the 19th century. In the first phases of the scramble for African territory, Europeans selectively colonized highland regions to escape from swampy regions of malaria, or "bad air": a choice that also contributed to the separation of the races. For further protection, they drank water flavored with quinine--a natural remedy, derived from the bark of the cinchona tree, discovered in Peru in the 15th century. To make the tonic more palatable, they added gin.

Eventually, control measures in Africa and the Americas, where malaria was also found, included environmental improvements and the application of insecticides, and by the 1950s there were dramatic drops in the incidence of the disease, worldwide. It was not conquered, however, but only held at bay. By the late 1970s, dwindling investments in public health programs, growing insecticide-resistance, and prevalent environmental changes, such as forest clearing, contributed to a widespread resurgence. By the late 1980s large epidemics were once again the rule, often associated with warm, wet periods.

In the past five years, the worldwide incidence of malaria has quadrupled, influenced by changes in both land development and regional climate. In Brazil, satellite images depict a "fish bone" pattern where roads have opened the tropical forest to localized development. In these "edge" areas malaria has resurged. Temperature changes have also encouraged a redistribution of the disease: Malaria is now found in higher-elevations in central Africa and could threaten cities such as Nairobi, Kenya (at about 5000 ft., or the altitude of Denver, Colorado), as freezing levels have shifted higher in the mountains. In the summer of 1997, for example, malaria took the lives of hundreds of people in the Kenyan highlands, where populations had previously been unexposed.

The anopheles mosquitoes that can carry malaria are present in the U.S., and, earlier this century, the disease was prevalent. After initially coming under control, small outbreaks of locally-transmitted malaria have occurred in this decade in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York--and again, as in the 1980s, in California--primarily during hot, wet spells. A persistence of similar climatic conditions, combined with inadequate (or ineffective) control methods, could lead to further localized outbreaks.

Worldwide, up to 500 million people--roughly twice the present population of the U.S.--contract malaria every year, and between 1.5 and 3 million, primarily children, die. Africa is most affected. Mosquito resistance to insecticides and parasite resistance to many drugs are widespread, and there are no operational vaccines, nor any foreseen in the near future. Ecological changes, along with increased weather variability and a warming trend, appear to be playing increasing roles in the spread of this disease.
Environmental Change And Opportunistic Species

continued.......

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:34 AM

Regulatory mechanisms are a feature of all living systems. Some cells within the body stand guard to repel invading organisms, or to reject cells that develop malignantly. In the environment, predators serve a similar role, keeping populations of pests under control.

Weeds, rodents, insects, and microorganisms are opportunists that reproduce very rapidly. Rodents, for example, have huge broods, plus small body sizes, wide-ranging appetites, and well developed dispersal mechanisms.

In stable environments, large predators fare well and keep smaller, opportunistic species in check. But opportunists can readily colonize overly-stressed environments, much as opportunistic infections take hold in patients with weakened immune systems.

Mosquito populations, for example, are naturally controlled by reptiles, birds, spiders, ladybugs, and bats--as well as by pond fish that feed on mosquito larvae. Mosquitoes provide nourishment for these animals, but some carry malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and several types of encephalitis. Similarly, owls, coyotes, and snakes eat rodents; and rodents can devour grains and transport Lyme disease ticks, hantaviruses (a debilitating viral infection), arenaviruses (such as South American hemorrhagic fevers and Lassa fever), leptospirosis bacteria, and human plague.

In the marine environment, fish, shellfish, and sea mammals consume algae that form the base of the marine food web. A reduction in these plankton feeders as a result of overfishing or disease may thus contribute to blooms of harmful algae. Harmful algal blooms, or "HABs," that despoil beaches and devastate shoreline birds and other animal life, can occur as oxygen-rich "red tides," or as oxygen-poor or hypoxic "brown tides." Plankton blooms can also harbor cholera and other bacteria, and threaten the health of swimmers, or those who consume affected fish and shellfish.
Environmental change and biological controls

Today the activities of one species, humans, are reducing the diversity of all others and transforming the global environment. Ecosystems subjected to the stresses of "global change" (including climate change and altered weather patterns, the depletion of stratospheric ozone, deforestation, coastal pollution, and marked reductions of biological diversity) become more susceptible to the emergence, invasion, and spread of opportunistic species. When subject to multiple stresses, natural environments can exhibit symptoms that indicate reductions in resilience, resistance, and regenerative capabilities. Conversely, ecosystems have inherent flexibilities and survival strategies that can be strengthened by systematic stress, such as the seasonal battering they must endure in temperate latitudes. But their tolerance for abuse has its limits.

Several features of global change tend to reduce predators disproportionately, and in the process release prey from their biological controls. Among the most widespread are:

* Fragmentation and loss of habitat
* Dominance of monocultures in agriculture and aquaculture
* Excessive use of toxic chemicals
* Increased ultraviolet radiation, and
* Climate change and weather instability.

The breaking up of large tracts of forest or other natural wilderness into smaller and more diverse patches reduces the available habitat for large predators, and favors many pests. Land and climate changes may act synergistically, as when constricted habitat frustrates a species' ability to migrate north or south to survive altered climatic conditions. Extensive deforestation and climate anomalies--such as the delayed monsoon rains that resulted from this year's El Niño--can also act synergistically, with costly results. A ready example is the massive haze from burning that covered much of Southeast Asia in September and October, causing acute and chronic respiratory damage and losses in trade, investment, and tourism--the latter, a $26 billion a year industry.

The dedication of land to monoculture, that is, the cultivation of single crops with restricted genetic and species diversity, renders plants more vulnerable to disease. Simplified systems are also more susceptible to climatic extremes and to outbreaks of pests.

Over-use of pesticides kills birds and beneficial insects, as noted in 1962 by Rachel Carson. The title of her book, Silent Spring, made reference to the absence of the chorus of birds in springtime, and the resulting resurgence of plant-eating insects--that had also evolved a resistance to pesticides. The worldwide response to her message transformed agricultural policies and generated more enlightened pest management. But today, the heavy application of pesticides still carries risks to both human health and natural systems. Over-use of pesticides in Texas and Alabama to control the boll weevil has alarmed farmers, for friendly insects such as spiders and lady bugs have died off and other plant pests have rebounded.
Ecosystem Health

As noted earlier, one of "nature's services" is to keep opportunistic species under control. Maintaining this service entails sustaining the health and integrity of ecosystems. One of the essentials is genetic and species biodiversity to provide alternative hosts for disease organisms. Another is sufficient stability among functional groups of species (such as recyclers, scavengers, predators, competitors, and prey) to ensure the suppression of opportunists and preserve essential ecological functions. Habitat is crucial.

Stands of trees interspersed with agricultural fields, for instance, support birds that control insects; clean ponds with healthy populations of fish serve to control mosquito larvae; and adequate wetlands filter excess nutrients, harmful chemicals, and microorganisms.

As a case in point, in tidewater Maryland, buffer zones around farms and the restoration of wetlands and river-bed trees can absorb the flow of sediments, chemicals, and harmful organisms into Chesapeake Bay, and thus reduce the emergence and spread of algae, toxic to fish. Ecosystems are also interrelated: healthy forests and mangroves in Central America, for example, are crucial to coral reefs that spawn fish stocks, formed at the origin of the great Gulf Stream. Maintaining the integrity of natural environmental systems provides generalized defenses against the proliferation of opportunistic pests and disease.

Population explosions of nuisance organisms, be they animals or plants or microbes, often reflect failing ecosystem health: a sign of systems out of equilibrium, in terms of the balance of organisms required to perform essential functions. The damage done, moreover, can be cumulative, for multiply-stressed systems are less able to resist and rebound when other stresses come along.

Rodents, insects, and algae are thus key biological indicators of ecosystem health. Their populations and species compositions respond rapidly to environmental change--particularly to an increase in their food supply, or a drop in the number of their natural predators. These indicator species are also linked to human health.
Impacts of a loss of biodiversity

continued.....

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:35 AM

The present rate of species extinctions around the world is a potential threat to human health when one considers the role that predators play in containing infectious disease. From the largest to the smallest scales, an essential element in natural systems for countering stress is a diversity of defenses and responses. Thus, animals that seem redundant may serve as "insurance" species in a natural ecosystem, providing a back-up layer of resilience and resistance when others are lost from disease, a changing environment, or a shortage of food or water.

In 1996 the World Conservation Union reported that one-fourth of all species of mammals--and similar proportions of reptiles, amphibians, and fish--are threatened. The current rate of extinctions (estimated at 100 to 1,000 times the rate of loss in the pre-human era) falls heaviest on large predators and "specialists," and thus may initially favor the spread of opportunistic species.
Environmental Distress Syndome: Monitoring Global Change

Some ecologists describe an evolving "Environmental Distress Syndrome," with several recognizable symptoms that integrate local and global stresses. Such signals include the rapid decline (and widespread malformations) in frogs in 140 countries on six continents, which may be the result of habitat loss, toxic chemicals, and increased ultraviolet-B radiation. Additional and more general symptoms of environmental distress are given in the adjoining box.

An Environmental Distress Syndrome

1. Emerging infectious diseases.

2. The loss of genetic and functional group species biodiversity.

3. Among animals, and birds as a particular example, a growing dominance of "generalists" that have wide-ranging diets (such as crows, Canada geese, and gulls) over "specialists" (like plovers) whose localized niches are disappearing.

4. A pronounced decline in one type of specialist--the pollinators (such as bees, birds, bats, butterflies, and beetles)--whose activities are indispensable for the preservation of flowering plants, including crops.

5. Along coastlines, the proliferation of harmful algal blooms.

Monitoring these biological signs--as well as the populations of key biological indicator species such as rodents, insects, and algae--can strengthen observing systems that currently track chiefly chemical and physical parameters, such as nitrogen flow into coastal waters and sea surface temperatures. Interactive geographical mapping that visually integrates the biological, chemical, and physical measurements can help define and analyze the consequences, costs, and the causes of global environmental change.
Climate And Emerging Diseases

Models of how the climate system will respond to enhanced greenhouse warming predict (1) increased air temperatures at altitudes of two to four miles above the surface in the Southern Hemisphere; (2) a disproportionate rise in minimum temperatures (TMINs), in either daily or seasonally-averaged readings; and (3) an increase in extreme weather events, such as droughts and sudden heavy rains. There is growing evidence for all three of these tell-tale "fingerprints" of enhanced greenhouse warming, and each of them is related to infectious diseases.

Persistent hot, humid weather spells can threaten the health of people who live in temperate latitudes. Farm animals are also adversely affected, especially when the air temperature remains uncommonly high throughout the night.

During the summer of 1995, excess deaths in Chicago and other large cities around the world were directly associated with heat waves, compounded by social isolation. In many instances, according to meteorologists, the key factor was the lack of relief at night. In the latter half of this century, TMINs over land areas have risen at a rate of 1.86°C per 100 years, while maximum temperatures have risen at 0.88°C per 100 years. Mild conditions and recurrent winter thawing can also damage forests and can allow harmful insects to survive.
Warmer temperatures and vector-borne disease

Changing social conditions, such as the growth of "mega-cities," and widespread ecological change, are contributing to the spread of infectious diseases. But climate restricts the range in which vector-borne diseases ;nbsp(VBDs) can occur, and weather affects the timing and intensity of their outbreaks. Rates of insect biting and the maturation of microorganisms within them are temperature-dependent, and both rates increase when the air warms. Warming can also increase the number of insects, provided adequate moisture, although excessive heat can decrease survival of either microorganisms or their hosts. Between the limits of too hot and too cold is an optimum range of temperature in which warmer air enhances metabolism and the chances for disease transmission.

Most insects are highly sensitive to temperature change: ants even run faster in warmer weather. Findings from paleoclimatic (fossil) studies demonstrate that changes in temperature (and especially in TMINs) were closely correlated with geographic shifts of beetles near the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago. Indeed, fossil records indicate that when changes in climate occur, insects shift their range far more rapidly than do grasses, shrubs, and forests, and move to more favorable latitudes and elevations hundreds of years before larger animals do. "Beetles," concluded one climatologist, "are better paleo-thermometers than bears."

continued......

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:36 AM

Computer models of global greenhouse warming project increased temperatures that will, in turn, favor the spread of VBDs to higher elevations and to more temperate latitudes. While 42 percent of the globe presently offers conditions that can sustain the transmission of malaria, the fraction could rise to 60 percent with a global increase of a few degrees C (Fig. 3).

Mosquitoes are hot weather insects that have fixed thresholds for survival. Anopheline mosquitoes and falciparum malaria transmission are sustained only where the winter temperature is kept above 16°C (61°F), while the variety of mosquito that transmits dengue fever, Aedes aegypti, is limited by the 10°C (50°F) winter isotherm. Shifts in the geographic limits of equal temperature (isotherms) that accompany global warming may extend the areas that are capable of sustaining the transmission of these and other diseases. The transmission season may also be extended in regions that now lie on the margins of the temperature and moisture conditions that allow disease carriers to reproduce. Similar considerations apply to cold-blooded agricultural pests, called stenotherms, that require specific temperatures for their survival.

Some of these projected changes may already be underway, for, as summarized in the box below, there are now reports from several continents of new outbreaks of VBDs in mountainous regions-- findings that are consistent with the recorded temperature increase, the general retreat of alpine glaciers, and the reported upward displacement of temperature-sensitive plants.

Global Change In Montane Regions
Both insects and insect-borne diseases (including malaria and dengue fever) are today being reported at higher elevations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Highland malaria is becoming a problem for rural areas in Papua New Guinea and for the highlands of Central Africa. In 1995, dengue fever blanketed Latin America, and the disease or its mosquito vector, Aedes aegypti, are appearing at higher elevations. In addition, the displacement of plants to higher elevations has been documented on thirty peaks in the European Alps, and has also been observed in Alaska, the Sierra Nevada range in the U.S., and in New Zealand. These botanical trends, indicative of gradual, systematic warming, accompany other widespread physical changes: Montane glaciers are in retreat in Argentina, Peru, Alaska, Iceland, Norway, the Swiss Alps, Kenya, the Himalayas, Indonesia, and New Zealand. Some may soon disappear.

Since 1970 the lowest level at which freezing occurs has climbed about 160 meters higher in mountain ranges from 30°N to 30°S latitude, based on radiosonde data analyzed at NOAA's Environmental Research Laboratory. The shift to higher levels on mountainsides corresponds to a warming at these elevations of about 1°C (almost 2°F), which is nearly twice the average warming that has been documented over the Earth as a whole. Notably, atmospheric models that incorporate observed trends in stratospheric ozone, sulfate aerosols, and greenhouse gases predict that, at least in the Southern Hemisphere, the warming trend at high mountain elevations should exceed that at the Earth's surface. Thus, mountain regions--where shifts in isotherms are especially apparent--can serve as sentinel areas for monitoring global climate change.

The consistency among physical and biological indicators agrees with the most recent, 1996 consensus findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that climate appears to be changing, and that some of the anticipated impacts are now observable. The IPCC also concluded that human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and forest clearing and burning, are apparently contributing to these changes. There may be some positive impacts such as fewer winter deaths, or a drop in schistosomiasis in areas where excessive heat kills off the snails that can carry the parasite larvae. But overall, the current evaluation is that the impacts of an unstable and rapidly changing climate on human health are likely to be overwhelmingly negative.
The Effects Of Climate Variability On Epidemics

continued......

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:37 AM

Another significant climate trend that has been linked to systematic changes in temperature and precipitation is an increase in the variability, or extremes, of climate. This change in extremes can alter not only the intensity of individual events, such as storms and floods, but the timing and spatial patterns of weather as well. Since the mid-1800s the average surface temperature of the globe has risen about 0.4°C-0.6°C, and periods of persistent warming can, in general, be associated with increased variability. The IPCC projects that the warming trend may be accompanied by more intense heat waves and altered drought and rainfall patterns.

As reported in the first issue of CONSEQUENCES, data from the National Climatic Data Center--this nation's main repository for meteorological data--indicate that, since the 1970s, extreme weather events have indeed increased in the continental U.S. On average, periods of drought are systematically longer, and bursts of precipitation (greater than two inches of rain over twenty- four hours) are more frequent. A warmed atmosphere accelerates evaporation, and for every rise of 1°C, the air can hold 6 percent more water. One consequence is that we are now receiving a greater percentage of precipitation in the form of sudden, intense bursts that are more typical, for example, in the tropics. Longer droughts and more heavy bursts of rain, accompanied by flash floods, were more common in the 1980s than in the 1970s, and more so in the 1990s than in the 1980s.

Extreme events--floods, storms, droughts, and uncontained fires--can be devastating for agriculture, for human settlements, and for health. More, brief cold snaps are also possible, and winter storms, like heat waves, bring an increase in cardiac deaths. Floods spread bacteria, viruses, and chemical contaminants, foster the growth of fungi, and contribute to the breeding of insects. Prolonged droughts, interrupted by heavy rains, favor population explosions of both insects and rodents. Extreme weather events (often associated with the recurring climatic conditions that are initiated by large-scale changes in sea surface temperatures in the Pacific, known as El Niño/La Niña events) have been accompanied by new appearances of harmful algal blooms in Asia and North America, and--in Latin America and Asia--by outbreaks of malaria and various water-borne diseases, such as typhoid, hepatitis A, bacillary dysentery, and cholera.
Disease Clusters

In August 1995 the eastern, tropical region of the Pacific Ocean surface turned cold, initiating a La Niña event that would last until late 1996. Along the Caribbean coast of Colombia a summer 1995 heat wave was followed by the heaviest August rainfall in fifty years, ending a long drought that accompanied the preceding, prolonged El Niño conditions of 1990-1995. The heat and flooding precipitated a cluster of diseases involving mosquitoes (Venezuelan equine encephalitis and dengue fever), rodents (leptospirosis), and toxic algae (that killed 350 tons of fish in their largest coastal lagoon).

Prolonged anomalous conditions of the sort that applied in 1990- 1995 can also have cumulative biological consequences. In New Orleans, for example, five years without a killing frost was associated with an explosion of mosquitoes, termites, and cockroaches. Termites persisted inside trees into the cold winter of 1995-1996, and now threaten to destroy stands of New Orleans' fabled "mighty oaks." We may have only just begun to understand the true biological impacts of the persistent anomalous climate of the 1990s.
Rodents: Synergies And Surprises

Rodents are today a growing problem in the U.S., Latin America, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia. These preeminent opportunists are believed to be the fastest reproducing mammal and they eat everything humans do, thrive on contaminated water and food, and are extremely capable swimmers. Meadow voles, whose numbers are kept in check by predatory marsh hawks, can have up to seventeen broods a year, for example, each of half a dozen offspring. Rodents consume 20 percent of the world's grain, including almost a seventh in our own country, and up to three quarters of what is grown and stored in some African nations. Rodents can also carry diseases.

continued....

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:38 AM

A controlled experiment with Canadian snowshoe hares depicts how multiple factors can act synergistically to greatly increase the number of rodents. Excluding predators by confining the rabbits to cages led to a population doubling, compared to the fate of a number of similar animals in the wild. Augmenting food tripled hare density. Together the interventions in the controlled experiment resulted in more than a ten-fold population explosion.
Rats, mice, and the hantavirus

The story of the hantavirus illustrates a similar synergy in the case of microbial agents.

A prolonged drought in the U.S. southwest in the early 1990s reduced the populations of animals such as owls, coyotes, and snakes that prey on rodents. When the drought yielded to intense rains in 1993, the grasshoppers and piñon nuts on which rodents feed became more abundant. The result, when combined with the drop in predators, was a ten-fold increase in rats and mice by June of that year. An outcome was the emergence of a "new" disease called Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome: from a virus--perhaps already present, but dormant--transmitted through rodent saliva, urine, and droppings. Predators returned, however, and by summer's end the outbreak had abated.

Rodent-borne hantaviruses have resurged in several European nations, and most notably in the former Soviet Union and in Yugoslavia. In late 1996, hantavirus infection emerged in South America in western Argentina. Within the first few months at least ten deaths resulted, frightening off tourists and threatening the economic livelihood of the region. Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome has now appeared in Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Uruguay, with about 50 percent mortality and several cases of person-to-person transmission.
Some other examples

Evidence of another rodent-borne disease --leptospirosis-- is increasingly reported in U.S. urban centers, in areas where the disposal of sewage and other measures to protect public health have declined. In 1995, there were substantial outbreaks of the disease in Central America and Colombia, as heavy (La Niña) rains, following the prolonged El Niño drought, drove rodents scurrying from their burrows. Leptospirosis is treatable with antibiotics; but there were fatalities in 1995 before the diagnosis was established.

A combination of stresses contributed to the sudden appearances of several rodent-borne viral hemorrhagic fevers in rural Latin America in the past several decades: Junin in Argentina (1953), machupo in Bolivia (1962 and 1996), guaranito in Venezuela, and sabiá in Brazil. In Bolivia, systematic clearing of trees apparently shifted populations of a variety of disease-carrying mice, known as calomys, from forest to field settings where they became dominant. Heavy applications of DDT --meant to eradicate malaria-- helped reduce their natural predators. When cats were reintroduced to the area in 1962, the epidemic of Bolivian hemorrhagic fever was abated, although not until it had killed 10 to 20 percent of the inhabitants of the small villages in which the disease was present. Habitat loss and excessive use of toxic chemicals acted together in this case.

In southern Africa, rodent populations exploded as a consequence of climate variability, when heavy and then lighter rains came in 1993 and 1994, on the heels of six years of prolonged drought. When the rains came, rodents found themselves in a world where avian and land predators were virtually absent. Moreover, because so many draft animals had also succumbed, there was little tillage of the land and the underground burrows in which rodents live went largely undisturbed. After an initial successful harvest in 1993, the maize crop in Zimbabwe was decimated by rodents. Soon after, human plague broke out in Zimbabwe and on the borders of neighboring Malawi and Mozambique, carried--as in the devastating plague of 14th century Europe--by fleas on rats. Subsequently, a rodent-borne virus took the lives of eighty-one elephants in South Africa's Kruger Park, and plague returned in the summer of 1997.

Plague in India resurfaced in 1994, following a blistering summer when temperatures reached 124°F, leaving animals prostrate in the northern part of the country and fueling the breeding of fleas in houses that held stored grain. The unusually heavy monsoons following the 1994 heat wave led to population crowding in Surat on the western coast, north of Bombay, and an apparent outbreak of pneumonic (person-to-person) plague. Cases of malaria and dengue fever also surged in the wake of flooding. Meanwhile, in Australia, rodents emerged as serious crop pests in 1995, accompanying the same prolonged El Niño of the early 1990s and the ensuing years of intense drought.

Current land-use practices and the overuse of chemicals to control pests may increase the chances for such "nasty synergies." Climate variability is also a key element in upsurges of pests--and were climate to become more unstable, it could exert an even greater influence on ecological dynamics and the patterns of infectious diseases in the future. A disturbance in one factor can be destabilizing; but multiple perturbations can reduce the resistance and the resilience of a entire system.
Marine Coastal Ecosystems

Seashores throughout the world are subject to increasing pressures from residential, recreational, and commercial development. These stresses may become more severe, for human population in the vicinity of sea-coasts is growing at twice the inland rate. Some of the pressures that we exert on coastal ecosystems are summarized in the accompanying box. All can increase the growth of algae.

continued..........

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:39 AM

Marine Ecosystem Stresses

1. An excess in coastal waters of dissolved mineral and organic nutrients, particularly from nitrogen overload--derived from sewage, agricultural fertilizers, and acid precipitation-- resulting in an environment that favors plant over animal life.

2. Reduced acreage of wetlands, that serve as "nature's kidneys" to filter nitrogen and other wastes that flow from the coastal environment.

3. Overfishing, that can reduce the population of beneficial predators of algae and animal plankton (zooplankton).

4. Chemical pollution and increased penetration of UV-B radiation that may increase mutation levels in near-shore sea life of all kinds, and disproportionately harm zooplankton and fish larvae.

5. Warming of coastal waters--and the associated trend toward stable, thermal layers that inhibit vertical circulation--which increases the metabolism and growth of algae, and favors more toxic algal species such as cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates. Warming may also reduce the immune systems of sea mammals and coral, and encourage the growth of harmful bacteria and viruses in their tissues.

Among the possible consequences of disruption in almost any marine ecosystem is an increase in the opportunistic pathogens that can abet the spread of human disease, sometimes to widespread proportions. One example is cholera.
Cholera

We often think of our modern world as cleansed of the epidemic scourges of ages past. But cholera --an acute and sometimes fatal disease that is accompanied by severe diarrhea-- affects more nations today than ever before. The Seventh Pandemic began when the El Tor strain left its traditional home in the Bay of Bengal in the 1960s, traveled to the east and west across Asia, and in the 1970s penetrated the continent of Africa. In 1991, the cholera pandemic reached the Americas, and during the first eighteen months more than half a million cases were reported in Latin America, with 5,000 deaths. Rapid institution of oral rehydration treatment--with clean water, sugar, and salts--limited fatalities in the Americas to about one in a hundred cases. The epidemics also had serious economic consequences. In 1991, Peru lost $770 million in seafood exports and another $250 million in lost tourist revenues because of the disease.

The microbe that transmits cholera, Vibrio cholerae, is found in a dormant or "hibernating" state in algae and microscopic animal plankton, where it can be identified using modern microbiological techniques. But once introduced to people--by drinking contaminated water or eating contaminated fish or shellfish-- cholera can recycle through a population, when sewage is allowed to mix with the clean water supply.

Five years ago, in late 1992, a new strain of Vibrio cholerae--O139 Bengal--emerged in India along the coast of the Bay of Bengal. With populations unprotected by prior immunities, this hardy strain quickly spread through adjoining nations, threatening to become the agent of the world's Eighth Cholera Pandemic. For a time, in 1994, El Tor regained dominance. But by 1996, O139 Bengal had reasserted itself. The emergence of this new disease, like all others, involved the interplay of microbial, human host, and environmental factors.

The largest and most intense outbreak of cholera ever recorded occurred in Rwanda in 1994, killing over 40,000 people in the space of weeks, in a nation already ravaged by civil war and ethnic strife. The tragedy of cholera in Rwanda is a reminder of the impacts of conflict and political instability on public health and biological security--just as epidemics may, in turn, contribute to political and economic stability.
Is The Ocean Warming?

continued.........

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:40 AM

Surface temperatures of the ocean have warmed this century, and a gradual warming of the deep ocean has been found in recent years in oceanographic surveys carried out in the tropical Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, and at both poles of the Earth. These findings could be indicative of a long-term trend. Corresponding temperature measurements of the sub-surface earth, in cores drilled deep into the Arctic tundra, show a similar effect.

The water that evaporates from warmer seas, and from vegetation and soils of a warmer land surface, intensifies the rate at which water cycles from ocean to clouds and back again. In so doing it increases humidity and reinforces the greenhouse effect. Warm seas are the engines that drive tropical storms and fuel the intensity of hurricanes. More high clouds can also contribute to warmer nights by trapping out-going radiation.
Some biological impacts

A warmer ocean can also harm marine plankton, and thus affect more advanced forms of life in the sea. A northward shift in marine flora and fauna along the California coast that has been underway since the 1930s has been associated with the long-term warming of the ocean over that span of time.

Warming--when sufficient nutrients are present--may also be contributing to the proliferation of coastal algal blooms. Harmful algal blooms of increasing extent, duration, and intensity--and involving novel, toxic species--have been reported around the world since the 1970s. Indeed, some scientists feel that the worldwide increase in coastal algal blooms may be one of the first biological signs of global environmental change.

Warm years may result in a confluence of adverse events. The 1987 El Niño was associated with the spread and new growth of tropical and temperate species of algae in higher northern and southern latitudes. Many were toxic algal blooms. In 1987, following a shoreward intrusion of Gulf Stream eddies, the dinoflagellate Gymnodimuim breve, previously found only as far north as the Gulf of Mexico, bloomed about 700 miles north, off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, where it has since persisted, albeit at low levels. Forty-eight cases of neurological shellfish poisoning occurred in 1987, resulting in an estimated $25 million loss to the seafood industry and the local community. In the same year, anomalous rain patterns and warm Gulf Stream eddies swept unusually close to Prince Edward Island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The result, combined with the run-off of local pollutants after heavy rains, was a bloom of toxic diatoms. For the first time, domoic acid was produced from these algae, and then ingested by marine life. Consumption of contaminated mussels resulted in 107 instances of amnesic shellfish poisoning, from domoic acid, including three deaths and permanent, short-term memory loss in several victims.

Also in 1987, there were major losses of sea urchin and coral communities in the Caribbean, a massive sea grass die-off near the Florida Keys, and on the beaches of the North Atlantic coast, the death of numerous dolphins and other sea mammals. It has been proposed that the combination of algal toxins, chlorinated hydrocarbons like PCBs, and warming may have lowered the immunity of organisms and altered the food supply for various forms of sea life, allowing morbilli (measles-like) viruses to take hold.
The 1990s

For five years and eight months, from 1990 to 1995, the Pacific Ocean persisted in the warm El Niño phase, which was most unusual, for since 1877 none of these distinctive warmings had lasted more than three years. Both anomalous phases--with either warmer (El Niño) or colder (La Niña) surface waters-- bring climate extremes to many regions across the globe. With the ensuing cold (La Niña) phase of 1995-1996, many regions of the world that had lived with drought during the El Niño years were now besieged with intense rains and flooding. Just as in Colombia, flooding in southern Africa was accompanied by an upsurge of vector-borne diseases, including malaria. Other areas experienced a climatic switch of the opposite kind, with drought and wildfires replacing floods. During 1996 world grain stores fell to their lowest level since the 1930s.

Weather always varies; but increased variability and rapid temperature fluctuations may be a chief characteristic of our changing climate system. And increased variability and weather volatility can have significant consequences for health and for society.
Decadal variability

continued.....

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:42 AM

The cumulative meteorological and ecological impacts of the prolonged El Niño of the early 1990s have yet to be fully evaluated, and another is now upon us. In 1995, warming in the Caribbean produced coral bleaching for the first time in Belize, as sea surface temperatures surpassed the 29°C (84°F) threshold that may damage the animal and plant tissues that make up a coral reef. In 1997, Caribbean sea surface temperatures reached 34°C (93°F) off southern Belize, and coral bleaching was accompanied by large mortalities in starfish and other sea life. Coral diseases are now sweeping through the Caribbean, and diseases that perturb marine habitat, such as coral or sea grasses, can also affect the fish stocks for which these areas serve as nurseries.

A pattern of greater weather variability has begun and is expected to persist with the El Niño of 1997 and 1998. Since 1976, such anomalies in Pacific Ocean temperatures and in weather extreme events have become more frequent, more intense, and longer lasting than in the preceding 100 years, as indicated in records kept since 1877.
Discontinuities And Instabiliby

The common perception that the natural world changes only gradually can be misleading, for discontinuities abound. Animals switch abruptly between two states--awake and asleep--that are sharply divided and marked by qualitative differences in levels of activity in the central nervous system. Water can rapidly change from vapor to liquid to solid. Ecosystems have equilibrium states that are also at times abruptly interrupted. An extensive fire in an old growth forest, for example, can radically change the types of plants and animals within it.

Climate regimes can also change surprisingly fast. Recent analyses of Greenland ice cores indicate that significant shifts, called rapid climate change events (RCCEs), have taken place in the past in the span of but several years--not centuries, as was previously believed. While the oceans may serve as a buffer against sudden climate change, this mechanism may be limited, for some of the RCCEs seem to be associated with abrupt changes in ocean circulation.

The climate system exhibits equilibrium states as well, of which three may have been most common: when the poles of the Earth were covered with small, medium, or large ice caps. The present, Holocene period of the last 10,000 years--with medium-size caps and an average global temperature of 15°C (about 60°F)-- has been associated with the development of modern agriculture and advancing civilization. But our present climate regime may be becoming less stable. Increased variance--that is, more extreme swings--in natural systems is inversely related to how stable and balanced the systems are, and how sensitive they are to perturbations. Wider and wider variations can occur as a system moves away from its equilibrium state.
Trends in the 20th century

The gradual warming that characterized the climate during the first four decades of the present century, for example, was accompanied by substantial temperature variability, as borne out in the record of degree-heating-days in the U.S. grain belt. The ensuing cooling trend from 1940 to the mid 1970s showed less variability. From 1976 to the present day, the variability--apparent in hot and cold spells, drought, and floods--has again increased. Greenland ice core records suggest that the last time the Earth warmed abruptly, ending the last Ice Age, there was also a pattern of increased variability.

The connection between human health and environmental stability increases our need for a better understanding of the present state of the global climate system. There are several unanswered questions regarding the system's stability. Was the drift toward earlier springtimes that began in this country in the 1940s indicative of the first minor readjustment in the climate regime? Are the more frequent and intense El Niño events since the mid 1970s another such indicator? Has the baseline of ocean temperatures shifted? Does the present climatic volatility--evident in altered weather and precipitation patterns--increase the potential for an abrupt "jump" in the climate system? And might further stresses lead to abrupt discontinuities of the type found in the Greenland ice cores, when the last Ice Age rapidly came to an end?
The Costs Of Climate Variability And Disease Outbreaks

Regardless of what caused it, the recent rise in severe wind and flood-related events worldwide has had extraordinary consequences for property insurers. Prior to 1989, no single-event insured loss in the U.S. had ever exceeded a billion dollars. Since then, annual insured losses have risen dramatically--from almost $1.6 billion annually in the 1980s to $10 billion in the 1990s: a jump that is only partially explained by more intensive exploitation of rivers and land and seashore property. Federal relief bills, chiefly from flooding, totaled $13 billion for the last five years, compared to $3.3 billion for the preceding five.

Because they combine exposure with weather-related events, the costs to the property insurance industry may be the most telling indicator of the non-sustainability of our interference with natural global systems. With continued extreme climate variability, health and environmental restoration costs may grow in a similar manner. It is significant that we are having difficulty insuring our future.

The economic impacts of disease in humans, livestock, and food crops can also be severe and far-reaching. Today the white fly--whose numbers swell when there is drought--is injecting at least eighteen types of geminiviruses into tomato, squash, and bean plants throughout Latin America, depleting the primary source of protein for many who live there. Recently a necrosis virus (vectored by soil-based fungi) that attacks rice has appeared in Colombia. Further spread of a disease of this staple food source could have enormous impacts on world food supplies.

While the 1991 cholera epidemic cost Peru over $1 billion in tourist income locally, international airline and hotel industries lost from $2 to $5 billion from the 1994 Indian plague. Cruise boats, quite understandably, have begun to avoid islands racked by dengue fever. In the Caribbean, this trend could threaten a $12 billion-a-year tourist industry that employs more than half a million people. The 1997 California floods left fungi and root rot that threatens that state's $22 billion citrus industry. Indeed, the global resurgence of malaria, dengue fever, and cholera, and the emergence of relatively new diseases like Ebola, toxic Escherichia coli and Mad Cow disease --which are related to ecology and animal husbandry practices-- affect not only the health of individuals but also of national economies.
An Historical Notes On Pandemics

continued........

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:43 AM

Pandemics emerge out of social and environmental conditions, and they can induce changes in both of them. At times the resulting changes have been disruptive; in other instances they have stimulated significant social reform.
The rise and fall of infectious disease

From a long-term historical perspective, pandemics have often been associated with major social transitions and overtaxed infrastructure. Their impacts have been lasting and profound.

A pandemic, of debated cause but remembered as the Plague of Justinian, struck Europe in A. D. 541. It came as the Roman Empire was in decline, and it raged for two centuries, claiming over 40 million lives, in an era when the total population of the Earth was at most 300 million. Urban centers were abandoned and the plague helped drive population resettlement into rural, feudal communities before it disappeared.

After a 600-year hiatus, plague again appeared, in A.D. 1346--at the depths of the Middle Ages--when growing urban populations had again outstripped the capabilities of cities to sustain sanitation and basic public health. Several other factors played compounding roles: Human populations had migrated from East to West; the Medieval Warm Period of the 12th and 13th centuries may have contributed to the proliferation of rats and fleas that carried the so-called bubonic plague; and cats had been killed in the belief that they were witches. In the ensuing five years of the so- called "Black Death," about 25 million lives were taken--about one of every three persons who lived in Europe at the time. Social relations and labor patterns were dramatically altered throughout Europe.

A third outbreak of widespread epidemic disease, almost 300 years later, had a more positive outcome.

In the course of the early Industrial Revolution, improvements that accompanied development led to a substantial decline in mortality from infectious disease. Then, in the 1830s, under the burgeoning weight of industrialization and the growth of population--seven-fold in London from 1790 to 1850--the conditions in European cities described in the novels of Charles Dickens became breeding grounds for three major infectious diseases: cholera, smallpox, and tuberculosis. Suddenly growth and development had outgrown infrastructure, and infectious diseases rebounded.

But the resurgence of infectious disease this time precipitated protests throughout the European continent, and ultimately led to constructive responses. In England, the Sanitary and Environmental Reform Movements were born; and the field of epidemiology ushered in modern public health principles and eventually, led to a national health program. The epidemics abated in the course of several decades (Fig. 4), three-quarters of a century before the advent of anti-microbials.
Recent history

By the 1960s widespread improvements in hygiene, sanitation, and mosquito control led most public health authorities to believe that we would soon conquer infectious diseases. In the 1970s public health schools turned their attention instead to chronic ailments, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer. But the so-called "epidemiological transition" to diseases of modernity never materialized in many developing nations. And, in the 1980s, the global picture shifted dramatically.

According to the U.N. World Health Organization's 1996 report, drug- resistant strains of bacteria and other microbes are having a deadly impact on the fight against several diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, and pneumonia --which collectively killed more than 10 million people in 1995. Spread of resistant organisms resulted from antibiotic overuse, microbial mutations, and the geographic movement of humans, insects, rodents, and microbes. Ironically, our very means to control infectious disease--antibiotics and insecticides--are, themselves, rapidly driving the evolution of new and unaffected strains. Notably, two thirds of antibiotic use is in animal husbandry, agriculture, and aquaculture.

In the 1990s, diphtheria rose exponentially in the former USSR as the public health system deteriorated following political and economic changes. The incidence rose from 4000 cases in 1992, to 8000 in 1993, and 48,000 in 1994, claiming the lives of over 4000 residents since 1990. Incidence has risen in fifteen nations of Eastern Europe, although recent immunization campaigns have begun to control this infection.

continued......

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:44 AM

Dengue fever, for which no vaccine is yet available, had essentially disappeared from the Americas by the 1970s, but has resurged in South America, infecting over 300,000 people in 1995-- which was, notably, the warmest year of this century. "Aedes aegypti is now well established in all areas of the Americas except Canada and Chile," ran a recent editorial in the British medical journal Lancet.

Settlements that surround typical mega-cities, where discarded non- biodegradable containers serve as ideal mosquito breeding sites, provide especially vulnerable settings; milder "cold" seasons and weather extremes can both help precipitate large outbreaks. Additionally, previous exposure and a change in the type of viral dengue circulating may lead to Dengue hemorrhagic fever, that carries a 5 to 10 percent mortality.

In 1995 the largest epidemic of yellow fever since 1950 -- carried by the same mosquito that transmits dengue --hit the Americas. Peru and the Amazon basin were heavily impacted, and there is a growing potential for urban yellow fever. While there is a yellow fever vaccine, the current supply may be inadequate for future needs.

Finally, in 1996 the largest epidemic ever recorded of meningitis struck West Africa, associated with pervasive drought, since dry mucus membranes may aid the invasion of the colonizing organisms. Over 100,000 persons contracted the disease and more than 10,000 people died. A vaccine is available, but must be used early to stop an epidemic.
Who is at risk?

Conditions conducive to the spread of epidemic infectious diseases now exist worldwide, according to the WHO report, and domestic environmental and social conditions that favor the spread of these diseases are present in the U.S. today. Infectious diseases that have emerged, like Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome, Lyme Disease, and toxic E. coli were not imported from other nations. E. coli, for example, spreads in cattle raised in close quarters.

The transmission of tuberculosis, another example, is facilitated in homeless shelters and in prisons. And while poorer populations are at greatest risk, outbreaks of infectious disease are not restricted to disadvantaged regions, for today's population movements facilitate "microbial traffic" between nations and economic groups.
What Can Be Done?

The concerns that have been elaborated here are not hopeless: there are solutions to all of them. The steps that are needed, moreover, would benefit our own and future generations regardless of the future course of climate or the inevitable environmental surprises that await us in years ahead. Solutions can be divided into three levels, ranging from tactical and immediate, to strategic and long- term, and all are within our present capabilities.

The first-level solution is improved surveillance and response capability for the public health sector, that includes the development of vaccines, better treatments, and more widespread support, around the world, for public health measures.

The second is the integration of health surveillance as an element of the kind of environmental monitoring that is called for in the accompanying article in this issue of CONSEQUENCES. We need to make greater use of remote sensing and climate forecasts--as for El Niño/La Niña occurrence--to develop health early warning systems to alert communities of conditions conducive to the outbreak of infectious diseases.

The third level is the evaluation of environmental and energy policies in the context of their impacts on human health and well- being. Maintaining the integrity of ecosystems, such as forest habitat and wetlands, can provide defense against outbreaks of the opportunists that carry disease, and provide a buffer against climatic vagaries and extremes, whether or not there is any change in the overall climate regime. Early interventions can save money and lives.
A Personal Conclusion

There are more and more fingerprints of an impending change in the global climate, and ever more evidence of our own ecological footprint on natural systems. We are living in a period of accelerated social, ecological, and climatic change. But will our global society react to the symptoms of environmental dysfunction in time to take corrective measures?

We are changing the chemistry of the air, and in the process altering the heat budget of the world. It is the multiple changes induced in the Earth's atmosphere--carbon buildup, sulfate accumulation, and ozone depletion--that constitute a destabilizing array of forcing factors. Together they may already have begun to alter natural climatic modes, such as the frequency and strength of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. These modifications--along with the changes in coastal ocean chemistry--have begun to affect biological systems and human health.

continued........

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:44 AM

Behind these chemical, physical, and biological changes is our ever- increasing use of the Earth's finite resources, and our generation of wastes at rates beyond which biogeochemical systems can adequately recycle them. These patterns of consumption are simply not sustainable and come at costs that are real, often very high, and not acknowledged by current systems of economic accounting. Practices affecting forestry, fisheries, petrochemicals, and fossil fuels need all be examined in light of their costs across the full range of their ultimate impacts, including their effects on biodiversity, climate, and the global resurgence of infectious diseases. Some of these practices now facilitate the spread of diseases by altering the environment, and others by undermining social infrastructures. The global environment is most drastically at risk from changes in the climate that are almost certain to follow our escalating combustion of fossil fuels. Air pollution--by particles and smog from fossil fuel combustion--add to the health hazards of warming. Ultimately, according to the first IPCC report, the world must reduce present greenhouse gas emissions from 60 to 70 percent to stabilize the concentrations in the atmosphere and, we can hope, allow natural systems to readjust. The U.N.-sponsored Framework Convention on Climate Change that addresses the burning of fossil fuels is an essential step, for the global carbon budget is key to all living systems.

The instability of many economies also jeopardizes the public health. Population growth and the relocation of people, driven by economic, environmental, and political factors, exert enormous pressures on the environment. Migration levels of the past two decades--within and between nations--surpass the great migrations of the 1800s. World Bank figures, not surprisingly, confirm that the ability of a society to stabilize its population--and as a consequence, bring public health and environmental degradation under control--is directly related to the degree of equity of income within it.

Unfortunately, international burdens of debt, binding austerity programs, unequal terms of trade, and numerous subsidies negate many of the policies, plans, and projects designed to alleviate poverty, preserve the environment, and stimulate economic growth and security. Short-term, microeconomic goals are hampered by stronger macroeconomic forces, creating social instability and ultimately retarding healthy development.

The global resurgence of infectious disease in the last quarter of the twentieth century--a backward step that few would have anticipated twenty years ago--is a clear consequence of combined and compounding changes in physical, chemical, biological, and social systems. Greater disease surveillance and response capability are the first, essential, steps. But viewed as a symptom, the resurgence of infectious disease across a wide taxonomic range may indicate that we may be vastly underestimating the true costs of "business-as- usual."

Fortunately, consciousness and values can change even more rapidly than do the natural systems we all depend upon. We face important decisions in the way we use and re-use the finite resources that are available to us. Perhaps we are also vastly underestimating the economic opportunities and employment benefits to society as a whole as we make the transition to use resources more efficiently, generate energy cleanly, and restore essential functions of the natural environment. Curbing our unhealthy addiction to fossil fuels may be the lever that opens the portal to a healthy and productive future.
Reviewers

continued......

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:45 AM

Dr. Eric Barron, who serves on CONSEQUENCES' Scientific Editorial Board, is Director of the Earth System Science Center and Professor of Geosciences at the Pennsylvania State University in University Park. His interests are in ocean and atmosphere modeling and global environmental change, with an emphasis on both past and future climates.

Dr. Joel Breman, an M.D. with a Diploma in Tropical Public Health, is Deputy Director of the Division of International Training and Research at the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. His research interests are in the epidemiology and ecology of infectious diseases and the evaluation of control and eradication programs.

Dr. Gary L. Simpson, M.D., is the Medical Director for Infectious Diseases at the State Department of Health in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He also holds a Ph.D. in molecular biology and advanced degrees in clinical medicine and in tropical public health. Dr. Simpson has practiced medicine in Massachusetts and New Mexico and has served as a fellow or on the faculty of medicine at Harvard, Stanford, the University of New Mexico, the University of Oxford, and the National Institute of Health in Bogotá, Columbia.

Dr. Warren M. Washington, an atmospheric scientist, is a senior scientist and former Director of the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. He also serves on the Presidentially-appointed National Science Board. Dr. Washington's research interests are in climate modeling and in conducting computer simulations of climate change.

For Further Reading

Biodiversity and Human Health. By F. Grifo and J. Rosenthal, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1997.

Climate Change and Human Health. Edited by A. J. McMichael, A. Haines, R. Slooff, and S. Kovats. Published by WHO/WMO/UNEP. Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.

Human Health and Climate Change. A conference report published by President's Office of Science and Technology Policy and IOM, Washington, D.C., 1996.

Global Climate Change and Life on Earth. Edited by R. L. Wyman. Routledge, Chapman and Hall. New York, 1991.

Global Warming and Biological Diversity. Edited by R. L. Peters and T. Lovejoy. Yale University Press. New Haven, 1992.

The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World out of Balance. By L. Garrett. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York, 1994.

The Forgotten Pollinators by S. L. Buchmann and G. P. Nabhan. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1996.

The World Health Report 1996: Fighting Disease, Fostering Development. World Health Organization, United Nations, New York, 1997.

Some Technical References

Anderson, P., and F. J. Morales, 1993: The emergence of new plant diseases. In: Wilson, M.E., Levins, R., and A. Spielman (Eds.). Disease in Evolution, NY Academy of Sciences, New York, 181-194.

continued......

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:46 AM

Barry, J. P., Baxter, C. H., Sagarin, R. D., and S. E. Gilman, 1995: Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a California rocky intertidal community. Science, 267, 672-675.

Billet, J. D., 1974: Direct and indirect influences of temperature on the transmission of parasites from insects to man. In: Taylor, A. E. R. and R. Muller, (Eds.). The Effects of Meteorological Factors Upon Parasites. Oxford. Blackwell Scientific Publication, 79-95.

Billings, D. W., 1995: What we need to know: some priorities for research on biotic feedbacks in a changing biosphere. In: Woodwell, G., and F. T. Mackenzie (Eds.). Biotic Feedbacks in the Global Climate System. Oxford University Press, New York. Ch. 22, 377-392.

Bindoff, N. L., and J. A. Church, 1992: Warming of the water column in the southwest Pacific. Nature , 357, 59-62.

Bouma, M. J., Sondorp, H. E., and J. H. van der Kaay, 1994: Health and climate change. Lancet, 343, 302.

Bouma, M. J., Sondorp, H. E., and J. H. van der Kaay, 1994: Climate change and periodic epidemic malaria. Lancet, 343, 1440.

Burgos, J. J., 1990: Anologias agroclimatologicas utiles para la adaptacion al posible cambio climatico global de America del Sur. Revista Geofisica, 22, 79-95.

Burgos, J. J., de Casas, S. I., Carcavallo, R. U., and G. T. Galindez, 1994: Global climate change in the distribution of some pathogenic complexes. Entomologia y Vectores , 1, 69-82.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1996: Mosquito- transmitted malaria--Michigan, 1995. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review, 45, 398-400.

CDC, 1995: Local transmission of Plasmodium vivax malaria-- Houston, Texas, 1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review 44, 295-303.

CDC, 1997: Mosquito-transmitted Plasmodium vivax infection-- Georgia, 1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review , 46, 264-267.

Dahlstein, D. L., and R. Garcia, (Eds.), 1989: Eradication of Exotic Pests: Analysis with Case Histories. Yale Univ. Press. New Haven, Conn.

Davis, M.B., 1989: Lags in vegetation response to greenhouse warming. Climatic Change , 15, 75-82.

DeMeillon, B., 1934: Observations on Anopheles funestus and Anopheles gambiae in the Transvaal. Publications of the South African Institute of Medical Research 6, 195-248.

Diaz, H. F., and N. E. Graham, 1996: Recent changes in tropical freezing heights and the role of sea surface temperature. Nature , 383, 152-155.

Dobson, A., and R. Carper, 1993: Biodiversity. Lancet, 342, 1096-1099.

Easterling, D. R., Horton, B., Jones, P. D., Peterson, T. C., Karl, T. R., Parker, D. E., Salinger, M. J., Razuvayev, V., Plummer, N., Jamason, P., and C. K. Folland, 1997: Maximum and minimum temperature trends for the globe. Science , 277, 363-367.

Elias, J. A., 1994: Quaternary Insects and Their Environments. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

Epstein, P. R., Pena, O. C., and J. B. Racedo, 1995: Climate and disease in Colombia. Lancet, 346, 1243.

Epstein, P. R., and G. P. Chikwenhere, 1994: Biodiversity questions (Ltr.). Science, 265, 1510-1511.

Focks, D. A., Daniels, E., Haile, D. G. and L. E. Keesling, 1995: A simulation model of the epidemiology of urban dengue fever: literature analysis, model development, preliminary validation, and examples of simulation results. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene , 53, 489-506.

Gill, C. A., 1920: The relationship between malaria and rainfall. Indian Journal of Medical Research , 8, 618-632.

Gill, C. A., 1920: The role of meteorology and malaria. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 8, 633-693.

Grabherr, G., Gottfried, N., and H. Pauli, 1994: Climate effects on mountain plants. Nature , 369, 447.

Graham, N. E., 1995: Simulation of recent global temperature trends. Science, 267, 666-671.

Haeberli, W., 1995: Climate change impacts on glaciers and permafrost. In: A. Guisan, J. I. Holton, R. Spichiger, and L. Terrier (Eds.). Potential Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in the Alps and Fennoscandanavian Mountains. Ed Conserv Bot Geneve, Geneva Switzerland, 97-103.

Hales. S., Weinstein, P., and A. Woodward, 1996: Dengue fever in the South Pacific: driven by El Niño Southern Oscillation? Lancet, 348, 1664-1665.

Hastenrath, S., and P. D. Kruss, 1992: Greenhouse indicators in Kenya. Nature , 355 (6360), 503.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1996: Climate Change '95: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Houghton, J. T., Meiro Filho, L. G., Callandar, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., and I. Maskell (Eds.). Chapter 3, p. 149 and Chapter 7, pp 370-374. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Jacobson, G. L, Jr., Webb, T., III, and E. C. Grimm, 1987: Patterns and rates of vegetation change during the deglaciation of eastern North America. In: Ruddiman, W. F., and Wright, H. E., Jr. North America and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Glaciation. The Geology of North America. Vol K-3, 277-288. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Karl, T. R., Jones, P. D., Knight, R. W., Kukla, G., Plummer, N., Razuvayev, V., Gallo, K. P., Lindsay, J., Charlson, R. J., and T. C. Peterson, 1993: A new perspective on recent global warming: Asymmetric trends of daily maximum and minimum temperature. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society , 74, 1007-1023.

Karl, T. R., Knight, R. W., Easterling, D. R., and R. G. Quayle, 1995. Trends in U.S. climate during the twentieth century. Consequences , 1, 3-12.

Karl, T. R., Knight, R. W., and N. Plummer, 1995: Trends in high- frequency climate variability in the twentieth century. Nature , 377, 217-220.

continued.......

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 06:47 AM

Karl, T. R., Nicholls, N., and J. Gregory, 1997: The coming climate. Scientific American, May, 78-83.

Kaser, G., and B. Noggler, 1991: Observations of Speke Glacier, Ruwenzori Range, Uganda. Journal of Glaciology , 37 (127), 313.

Lear, A., 1989: Potential health effects of global climate and environmental changes. New England Journal of Medicine , 321, 1577-1583.

Leeson, H. S., 1939: Longevity of Anopheles maculipennis race atroparvus, Van Theil, at controlled temperature and humidity after one blood meal. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 30, 103-301.

Lindsay, S., and P. Martens, 1997: Malaria in the African highlands: past, present and future. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, in press.

Loevinsohn, M., 1994: Climatic warming and increased malaria incidence in Rwanda. Lancet. 343, 714-718.

Matola, Y. G., White, G. B., and S. A. Magayuka, 1987: The changed pattern of malaria endemicity and transmission at Amani in the eastern Usambara mountains, north-eastern Tanzania. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene , 90, 127-134.

McArthur, R. H., 1972: Geographical Ecology. Harper & Row, New York.

Maldonado, Y. A., Nahlen, B. L., Roberto, R. R., et al., 1990: Transmission of Plasmodium vivax malaria in San Diego County, California, 1986. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene , 42, 127-134.

Martens, W. J. M, Jetten, T. H. and D. Focks, 1997: Sensitivity of malaria, schistosomiasis and dengue to global warming. Climatic Change , 35, 145-156.

Martin, D. H., and M. Lefebvre, 1995: Malaria and climate: sensitivity of malaria potential transmission to climate. Ambio , 24, 200-209.

Mashell, R., Mintray, T. M., and B. A. Callandar, 1993: Basic science of climate change. Lancet , 343, 1027-1031.

Matsuoka, Y., and K. Kai, 1994: An estimation of climatic change effects on malaria. Journal of Global Environment Engineering , 1, 1-15.

McMichael, A. J., Haines, A., and R. Slooff (Eds.), 1996: Climate Change and Human Health. World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization, United Nations Environmental Program, Geneva, Switzerland.

Molineaux, L., 1988: In: Wernsdorfer, W. H., and I. McGregor (Eds.). Malaria, Principles and Practice of Malariology (volume 2). Churchill Livingstone, New York, 913-998.

Overpeck, J. T., Bartlein, P. J., and T. Webb III, 1991: Potential magnitude of future vegetation change in eastern North America: Comparisons with the past. Science , 254, 692-695.

Parmesan, C., 1996: Climate and species' range. Nature, 302, 765.

Patrilla, S., Lavin, A., Dryden, H., Garcia, M. and D. Millard, 1994: Rising temperatures in the sub-tropical North Atlantic Ocean over the past 35 years. Nature , 369, 48-51.

Patz, J. A., Epstein, P. R., Burke, T. A., and J. M. Balbus, 1996: Global climate change and emerging infectious diseases. Journal of the American Medical Association , 275, 217-223.

Pauli, H., Gottfried, M., and G. Grabherr, 1996: Effects of climate change on mountain ecosystems--upward shifting of alpine plants. World Resource Review , 8, 382-390.

Peters, R. L., 1991: Consequences of global warming for biological diversity. In Wyman, R. L. (Ed.), Global Climate Change and Life on Earth. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, New York.

Reeves, W. C., Hardy, J. L., Boison, W. K., and M. M. Milby, 1994: Potential effect of global warming on mosquito-borne arboviruses. Journal of Medical Entomology , 31, 323-332.

Reisen, W. K., Meyer, R. P., Preser, S. B., and J. L. Hardy, 1993: Effect of temperature on the transmission of western equine encephalomyelitis and St. Louis encephalitis viruses by Culex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicadae). Journal of Medical Entomology , 30, 51-160.

Regaldo, A., 1995: Listen up! The world's oceans may be starting to warm. Science, 268, 1436-1437.

Retallack, G. J., 1997: Early forest soils and their role in Devonian global change. Science , 276, 583-585.

Roemmich, D., and J. McGowan, 1995: Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in the California current. Science , 267, 1324-1326.

Rozendaal, J., 1996: Assignment report: Malaria. World Health Organization. Pt. Moresby. Papua New Guinea. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Santer, B. D., Taylor K. E., Wigley, T. M. L., Johns, T. C., Jones, P. D., Karoly, D. J., Mitchell, J. F. B., Oort, A. H., Penner, J. E., Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., Stouffer, R. J., and S. Tett, 1996: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Nature , 382, 39-46.

Shope, R., 1991: Global climate change and infectious disease. Environmental Health Perspectives , 96, 171-174.

Some, E. S, 1994: Effects and control of highland malaria epidemic in Kenya. East African Medical Journal , 71(1), 2-8.

Suarez, M. F., and M. J. Nelson, 1981: Registro de altitud del Aedes aegypti en Colombia. Biomedica , 1, 225.

Susskind, J., Piraino, P., Rokke, L., Iredell, L., and A. Mehta, 1997: Characteristics of the TOVS Pathfinder Path A data set. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, in press.

Sacherst, R. J., 1990: Impact of climate change on pests and diseases in Australasia. Search , 21, 230-232.

Thompson, L. G., Mosley-Thompson, E., Davis, M., Lin, P. N., Yao, T., Dyurgerov, M., and J. Dai, 1993: "Recent warming": ice core evidence from tropical ice cores with emphasis on Central Asia. Global and Planetary Change , 7, 145.

Thwaites, T., 1994: Are the antipodes in hot water? New Scientist, 12 November, 21.

Travis, J., 1994: Taking a bottom-to-sky "slice" of the Arctic Ocean. Science , 266, 1947-1948.

World Health Organization, 1996: The World Health Report 1996: Fighting Disease, Fostering Development. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

Yoon, C. K., 1994: Warming moves plants up peaks, threatening extinction. The New York Times, 21 June, C4.

Zucker, J. R., 1996: Changing patterns of autochthonous malaria transmission in the United States: A review of recent outbreaks. Emerging Inctious Diseases , 2, 37.

WMM

Boomer Chick

04-20-2005, 07:36 AM

Boomer Chick

04-20-2005, 08:48 AM

Karl, T. R., Nicholls, N., and J. Gregory, 1997: The coming climate. Scientific American, May, 78-83..........................................

WMM

This is the last page of your quite long and great article. May I ask for the link? Would it be possible on these long pieces to post a link and stress the material therein? Perhaps excerpt parts? I like visiting links and websites because usually more information can be gleened from the site and its links as well.

What's very exciting about the whole issue of rising carbon dioxide levels and pollution, especially in cities, is the availability, RIGHT NOW, of technology capable of wiping out the problem in a matter of a few years. Start with the buses and taxis, move on to the trucks, and then on to the citizen's cars. Start with biodiesel in the already diesel engines (trucks, tractors, cranes, buses), switch to electric/combo hybrid taxis and city utility cars and trucks, police cars, etc. and then bring the public onboard with tolls and taxes on the incoming biways who don't comply with emissions standards. The taxes and tolls could pay for the city utility transition and greening efforts until the pollution and greenhouse gas levels lower at which time the tolls and taxes will cease. City ordinances, small electric in-city vehicles for public rental, tolls for non-compliance upon entrance to the city, state emissions standards, in-city factory retrofitting for emissions standards, greening, alternative fuels and hybrid incentives for fleets, trucks (state), automobiles, alternative-fuel public transit and shuttle systems...... and voila! Clean cities!

Anyone who fights cleaning up the air and controlling CO2 in general, fights an already growing economic opportunity and common sense approach to improving obvious polluted, CO2-abundant, particulate-polluted, and heat-producing urban air environments. Even disregarding the weather and climate effects, there's enough threat to the health of human beings to justify the work on this clean up effort.

It takes committment, funding, political and legislative backing, innovation, and economic opportunities do abound, creating jobs upstream and downstream. The initial investment in alternative fuels and new transportation will be high, but, it will pay for itself through its own use..... cheaper, clean, and renewable. Just like installing a solar panel system on one's home, the initial outlay will be expensive, but the system pays for itself over the years until the energy then pays for itself and in the long term, frees the homeowner from future costs and often produces excess energy to sell to others.

Why fight it? Killing three birds with one stone has never been unwise. Pollution creation and CO2 over-production will BOTH cease under a common sense approach to transition to clean and renewable energy and non-polluting technologies. Just plain common sense. No fear, no panic, just a committed leadership in communities to transition the transportation and industrial standards regarding waste products, and a basic regard for the biosphere in adding trees, gardens, and greenery and you then relieve any question regarding the contributory greenhouse gas situation and heat sinks related to the overall global climate situation. Takes time, but not beyond our power or ability to accomplish.

I picture it..... and it is good! AMEN!

What's the point of continuing to pollute, and continuing to use fossil fuels? There is no point. Therefore, there's no point to arguing about the health affects, molds, fungi, or anything else. The BIG PICTURE is common sense in cleaning up our wastes..... health, climate, biosphere and even the economy improves....... WHY FIGHT IT? It's a WASTE of our time to argue with stupidity and foot dragging in our transition..... as I've said before and proven.... IT'S ALREADY BEGUN AND ONE LITTLE GUY ON AN INTERNET BOARD CANNOT STOP IT !!!

Go with the flow.... bend like a reed.... be part of change... or on the road of life... be stuck like a mule with his foot in a mud hole !!!

BC

whitemajikman

04-20-2005, 01:03 PM

This is the last page of your quite long and great article. May I ask for the link? Would it be possible on these long pieces to post a link and stress the material therein? Perhaps excerpt parts? I like visiting links and websites because usually more information can be gleened from the site and its links as well.

What's very exciting about the whole issue of rising carbon dioxide levels and pollution, especially in cities, is the availability, RIGHT NOW, of technology capable of wiping out the problem in a matter of a few years. Start with the buses and taxis, move on to the trucks, and then on to the citizen's cars. Start with biodiesel in the already diesel engines (trucks, tractors, cranes, buses), switch to electric/combo hybrid taxis and city utility cars and trucks, police cars, etc. and then bring the public onboard with tolls and taxes on the incoming biways who don't comply with emissions standards. The taxes and tolls could pay for the city utility transition and greening efforts until the pollution and greenhouse gas levels lower at which time the tolls and taxes will cease. City ordinances, small electric in-city vehicles for public rental, tolls for non-compliance upon entrance to the city, state emissions standards, in-city factory retrofitting for emissions standards, greening, alternative fuels and hybrid incentives for fleets, trucks (state), automobiles, alternative-fuel public transit and shuttle systems...... and voila! Clean cities!

Anyone who fights cleaning up the air and controlling CO2 in general, fights an already growing economic opportunity and common sense approach to improving obvious polluted, CO2-abundant, particulate-polluted, and heat-producing urban air environments. Even disregarding the weather and climate effects, there's enough threat to the health of human beings to justify the work on this clean up effort.

It takes committment, funding, political and legislative backing, innovation, and economic opportunities do abound, creating jobs upstream and downstream. The initial investment in alternative fuels and new transportation will be high, but, it will pay for itself through its own use..... cheaper, clean, and renewable. Just like installing a solar panel system on one's home, the initial outlay will be expensive, but the system pays for itself over the years until the energy then pays for itself and in the long term, frees the homeowner from future costs and often produces excess energy to sell to others.

Why fight it? Killing three birds with one stone has never been unwise. Pollution creation and CO2 over-production will BOTH cease under a common sense approach to transition to clean and renewable energy and non-polluting technologies. Just plain common sense. No fear, no panic, just a committed leadership in communities to transition the transportation and industrial standards regarding waste products, and a basic regard for the biosphere in adding trees, gardens, and greenery and you then relieve any question regarding the contributory greenhouse gas situation and heat sinks related to the overall global climate situation. Takes time, but not beyond our power or ability to accomplish.

I picture it..... and it is good! AMEN!

What's the point of continuing to pollute, and continuing to use fossil fuels? There is no point. Therefore, there's no point to arguing about the health affects, molds, fungi, or anything else. The BIG PICTURE is common sense in cleaning up our wastes..... health, climate, biosphere and even the economy improves....... WHY FIGHT IT? It's a WASTE of our time to argue with stupidity and foot dragging in our transition..... as I've said before and proven.... IT'S ALREADY BEGUN AND ONE LITTLE GUY ON AN INTERNET BOARD CANNOT STOP IT !!!

Go with the flow.... bend like a reed.... be part of change... or on the road of life... be stuck like a mule with his foot in a mud hole !!!

BC

Thanks for pointing out my lack of a link.....

here it is.......for your perusal.......

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol3no2/climhealth.html

WMM

Boomer Chick

04-20-2005, 06:43 PM

Thanks for pointing out my lack of a link.....

here it is.......for your perusal.......

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol3no2/climhealth.html

WMM

WMM ---Thanks! Guess you know to whom I was directing my rant? Hope so! It certainly wasn't you!

Just wanted to make that clear as a tinkling bell ! :D

masher

04-20-2005, 09:40 PM

What, you wish me to rebut every piece of text Epstein has written? Not a difficult task at all...but one that will occupy me far too long here. I'll stay on topic instead, and once again show you Epstein was wrong on the subject of molds. From the Department of Biocehmical Science and Technology, Kagoshima University, Japan:

"...CO2 enriched atmospheres were significantly effective to inhibit fungi growth in vitro...High levels of CO2 supress the development of most pathogens by inhibiting various metabolic functions..."[/INDENT]

The CO2 levels they studied most thoroughly were -- as in the study to which Epstein referred -- much higher than one would ever experience in nature. They did, however, test with lower levels, and noted:

] "No significant inhibition of fungal growth...."[/INDENT]

No increase in growth either. In other words, ZERO effect from levels one would expect in nature. (http://www.ansinet.org/fulltext/pjbs/pjbs7111993-1995.pdf)' BTW the particular fungus studied was aspergillus, one of the most notorious producers of allergic reactions in humans.

Here's a research paper archived under the National Institute of Health's site, "The Influence of atmospheric gases on growth and toxin production of sterigmatocystin and patulin-producing molds". The conclusion? Very high CO2 levels retard growth....anything other than that has no effect. BTW, sterigmatocystin and patulin are two of the more dangerous mycotoxins produced by molds. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=973434&dopt=Abstract)

I could list a thousand others. Literally a thousand....but it would delay me from presenting this last bit....the research that completely and utterly invalidates Epstein's propaganda. First, let me refresh your memory. Epstein quoted research on mycorrhizal fungi, research that showed (some) of those fungi grew faster and pollinated more under enhanced CO2 levels. Some of them grew slower, some were unaffected....but hey, at least some grew faster...and thus Epstein could sound the alarm bells loudly, ignoring the fact that these underground fungi aren't a source of allergens in the first place.

However, another term of reserachers who-- like myself were puzzled by those results-- tested again, using the EXACT SAME SPECIES. Their results were published in Nature, Feb 2005. The article is titled "Abrupt rise in atmospheric CO2 overestimates community response in a model plant-soil system". Allow me to quote from the paper itself:

[INDENT]Attempts to understand the ecological effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, [CO2], usually involve exposing today’s ecosystems to expected future CO2 levels. However, a major assumption...has not been tested—that exposing ecosystems to a single-step increase in CO2 will yield similar responses to those of a gradual increase over several decades. We tested this assumption on a mycorrhizal fungal community over a period of six years. CO2 was either increased abruptly....or more gradually over 21 generations. The two approaches resulted in different...responses...Some fungi were sensitive to the carbon pulse of the abrupt CO2 treatment. This resulted in an immediate decline in fungal species richness and a significant change in mycorrhizal functioning. The magnitude of changes in fungal diversity and functioning in response to gradually increasing CO2 was smaller, and not significantly different to those with ambient CO2....

Get it? When you suddenly double the CO2 level on these fungi, some of them react...either by growing faster or slower. But when you *gradually* increase the level (they doubled atmospheric CO2 over a 6-year period), there was no statistically significant effect. None. Zero. Epstein-- having gone out of his way to find a fungal species that would react according to his doomsayer prophecies-- has just had the rug yanked out from under him.

Once again, Epstein is proven a quack. A fraud. A charlatan.

Thanks for playing.

whitemajikman

04-21-2005, 06:18 AM

masher

04-21-2005, 07:52 AM

> You Have only shown Evidence of one aspect of where Epstein might be wrong........

Thanks for admitting I've proven Epstein wrong. And yes, I have done so for only this one instance...however, its the one we were debating.

> NOW ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE OCCURING........?

No, never said anything like that. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

> ESPECIALLY IF YOUR GOING TO BASE YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE ON A FEW STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF CO2 ON MOLD.......

By way lame excuse for logic do you think ANYONE could base whether climate change was happening or not on the effects of CO2 on mold?

> Epstein is only one of Literally thousands of researchers out there.....

He's the only one claiming nonsense like elevated CO2 levels are going to cause an explosion of mold-related allergies and illnesses.

> WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO PLAY...........And Thats A FACT........

No, we're through. And you've lost....you just haven't realized it yet.

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 08:44 AM

I missed this one, but will catch the next chapters!

Global warming's weird legacies

BY NOEL HOLSTON
STAFF WRITER

April 20, 2005

Signs and wonders? You want to see signs and wonders? Forget about tonight's second chapter of "Revelations," NBC's pop-apocalypse miniseries - that is, if you aren't already ignoring it. Instead, check out the premiere of "Strange Days on Planet Earth," a two-part National Geographic special that is flush with wonders and teeming with signs that suggest not some inevitable "end" but unpredictable, trying times ahead.

"It's like science fiction," host-narrator Edward Norton says at the outset. "Unsettling transformations are sweeping across the planet, and clue by clue investigators are assembling a new picture of Earth. They suggest we are entering a period of faster global change than any human being has ever witnessed."

Norton, an actor ("Fight Club," "Red Dragon"), may seem like a strange choice but comes by his credentials naturally. His father is the former head of policy for the Wilderness Society and is currently director of the Nature Conservancy's China program. Norton says he "grew up very steeped" in environmentalism. He never sounds as though he's just reading a script.

"Strange Days" is designed to be as accessible as possible. Each of the four one-hour installments is constructed rather like a mystery story: first an example of something going haywire in nature, then a search for clues, then the best explanation scientists can provide. It's the application of this process that, for instance, in tonight's second hour, links rising temperatures in the Indian Ocean to changes in weather systems over the North Atlantic, dumping fungus-infected dust from Africa on Trinidad and causing a rise in asthma among children. It is a small world, after all. Intricately interconnected, too.

The series producers aren't above gimmicks. In the opening hour, which deals with the havoc accidentally transplanted organisms can wreak on new environments, Sheldon Mirowitz's soundtrack music lends an "X-Files" feel to vignettes about "alien hunters" - scientists who search coastal docks for evidence of intruding plants and sea animals from afar, or who probe old New Orleans mansions for Formosan subterranean termites that are eating the Big Easy like a Big Mac.

They use such trickery sparingly, however, just to create entry points. They are trying to engage an audience that, if the included person-on-the-street interviews are an indication, is split mostly between those who couldn't care less and those who could but feel helpless.

The overall lesson of tonight's two installments and of next week's - which deal with the disappearance of large predators and the increase of toxins in seas and lakes, respectively - is that little changes in nature don't just add up, they increase exponentially. And virtually all the changes cited can be traced back to the "planetary thermostat" we've turned up by burning fossil fuels at an accelerating clip over the past century.

If these are strange days for planet Earth, they're glory days for PBS, which, not coincidentally, is the television network least concerned with promoting consumption and waste. From last Saturday's "State of the Planet" report to the "Deep Jungle" miniseries that premiered Sunday to the edition of "Scientific American Frontiers" about global warming that precedes the debut of "Strange Days" tonight, PBS is building up to Earth Day (Friday) with shows that celebrate natural wonders and biodiversity and that ask us what we're willing to do, what we're willing to change, to nurture and sustain this miraculous sphere we cohabit.

Label these programs alarmist if you must, but they're not gloom and doom. They're about problems we can do something about if we can be bothered to acquire the knowledge and summon the will.

STRANGE DAYS ON PLANET EARTH. National Geographic offers a two-part, four-hour study of curious developments on the old home sphere, what they mean and what we might do about them. Premieres tonight at 9 on WNET/13. Concludes next Tuesday night.

E-mail Noel Holston at noel.holston@newsday.com.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 08:50 AM

Niwa vessel sets out to measure global warming
20 April 2005

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3254929a11,00.html

A National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) ship will leave Wellington tomorrow on a two-month voyage to Hawaii to deploy high-tech floats which will measure global warming.

The Argo programme is an international effort to deploy a network of floats which will help scientists predict the strength of tropical cyclones. They can even track the path of toxic algal blooms. The crew of the Kaharoa have already deployed more than 141 Argo floats – more than any other vessel in the world, Niwa scientist Philip Sutton said.

By the time it returns, the 28m-long ship would have deployed more than 200 floats and clocked up more than 40,000 nautical miles on Argo missions – almost the equivalent of sailing to Britain and back twice, he said.

The floats – which cost about $20,000 each – sink to a depth of 1000m where they are carried along by ocean currents. After nine or ten days, they sink further to 1250-2000m and then rise to the surface, measuring the temperature and salinity of the water on the way up.

Once on the surface, the float transmits the recorded information and its location via satellite.

The voyage is a joint collaboration between Niwa, the University of Washington in Seattle and Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego.

Later this year, the Kaharoa would deploy another 134 floats on a long voyage which would take the crew to Chile and up to San Diego.

***

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 09:23 AM

From the PBS site: Establishing a connection with asthma and fungi :

http://www.pbs.org/strangedays/episodes/onedegreefactor/experts/africandust.html

Just over the course of her own lifetime, physician Michele Monteil has found an alarming rise of childhood asthma in her native Trinidad. Levels of asthma here are among the highest in the world. The incidence of asthma on Barbados and nearby Trinidad, as documented by the Caribbean Allergy and Respiratory Association (CARA), has increased 17-fold since 1973.

Concurrently, marine biologist Ginger Garrison has noted an increasing incidence of sea fan disease in the tropical waters around the Caribbean. Could these two disparate events be connected? Independently, these researchers have linked their target ailments to a surprising single suspect – African dust.

Every year, several hundred million tons of African dust are transported across the Atlantic to the Caribbean, Central and South America. Summer storms can lift dust as high as 15,000 feet over the African deserts and then out across the Atlantic. Garrison and her colleagues discovered that a toxic fungal pathogen known as Aspergillus sydowii was traveling in this African dust and could be a main culprit behind sea fan diseases.

Ginger Garrison studying a sea fan.
It appears episodic dust storms are capable of depositing disease-ridden particles across the Caribbean. These particles are carried in persistent trade winds blowing across the Atlantic from the Sahara Desert and bordering drought-ridden areas such as Lake Chad. Climatologist Jim Hurrell has discovered that the strength of these tradewinds is, in part, attributable to a remarkable feature of the atmosphere that sits over the north Atlantic: two gigantic air masses, one high pressure, the other low-known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). (Some scientists refer to the NAO as the Arctic Oscillation or alternatively the North Annular Oscillation.)

The two air masses of the NAO propel storms up into the northern regions of Europe and Eurasia while simultaneously shuttling dust from Africa over to the Americas. During the 1980s and the 1990s, these two air systems tended to be locked in an intense positive phase one winter after the next. This pattern has persisted for the last 20-30 years.

Modeling this phenomenon, Hurrell discovered that Earth's rising temperature is affecting the year-to-year behavior of this massive atmospheric system. Focusing on an area of the world where the average temperature has been rising particularly fast — the Indian Ocean — Hurrell's models suggest that the energy released into the atmosphere by the warming waters there may be reinforcing the energy of the North Atlantic Oscillation.

***

Michele Monteil, PhD
Physician

How does a clinically-trained immunologist become involved with Sahara dust and human respiratory health? By accident! Several years ago, one of the local television weather reporters cautioned allergic viewers to be aware of increased quantities of Sahara dust in the atmosphere. Dr. Monteil had never heard of the association before and decided to ask some of her allergic patients and friends. Several considered that their allergies worsened when there was "Sahara dust." From there, she perused the regional and global medical literature and found no evidence of any relationship but discovered the work of Professor Joseph Prospero and others in Barbados. What was the situation in Dr. Monteil's own back yard of Trinidad and Tobago? With a group of enthusiastic and hard-working medical students, she began trying to find if there was epidemiological evidence for a relationship between Sahara dust cover and pediatric asthma Emergency Room attendance in Trinidad.

Monteil became a doctor because she doesn't remember ever really wanting to be anything else and then became an immunologist because she heard this marvelous series of lectures on clinical immunology while she was at the Queen Elizabeth College, University of London. She studied biochemistry at the University of London, Medicine at the University of the West Indies and then did postgraduate Masters, Doctorate and Fellowship degrees in London, England. She is currently employed as a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of the West Indies. Dr. Monteil's claim to fame is that she must have been the only mother (of two) in the world to have graduated at the top of a medical studies class. She is very proud of that achievement. Her future research plans consist of assessing the incidence of exacerbation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease in relation to Sahara dust cover and continuing ongoing epidemiological studies of asthma and other allergic diseases among the pediatric population in Trinidad and Tobago.

Relevant Publications

Gyan, K. Henry, W., Lacaille, S., Laloo, A., Lamsee, C., Banks, E., McKay, S., Antoine, R.M. and Monteil, M.A. (2003). African dust clouds are associated with increased paediatric asthma Accident and Emergency admissions on the Caribbean island of Trinidad. ERA-International-Health (Lancet-based website for international research).

Ivey, M., Simeon, D. and Monteil, M.A. (2003). Climate Variables are Associated with Seasonal Acute Asthma Admissions to Accident & Emergency Room Facilities in Trinidad, West Indies. Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 33(11), 1526-1530.

***

Related study:

http://www.thelancet.com/era/LLAN.ERA.1165

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 09:46 AM

Recommended site for greenhouse gases from a serious British activist:

Dave Reay was born in Fleet, Hampshire, in 1972. He studied Marine Biology at Liverpool University and graduated in 1994. He went on to gain a PhD at Essex University studying the response of Southern Ocean algae and bacteria to temperature change. After gaining his doctorate he continued working as a post-doc at Essex, investigating the impact of land-use on the soil methane sink. In 2001 he moved to Edinburgh University to investigate emissions of the greenhouse gas 'nitrous oxide' from agriculture, and continues to work there as a post-doctoral research fellow in the School of Geosciences. He is designer and editor of the new science website Greenhouse Gas Online' and Google UK's top Southern Ocean website. He enjoys running, Test Match Special, and writing stories for his daughter.

http://www.ghgonline.org/

Might be worth saving in your favorites! He does use IPCC information.

***

Report on CO2 from NOAA -- Mauna Loa measurements:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4395817.stm

***
Interesting studies related to manure and greenhouse gas emissions.....more than one study. Great scientific journal site (free).

Published in J. Environ. Qual. 33:37-44 (2004).
© ASA, CSSA, SSSA
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA

TECHNICAL REPORTS
Atmospheric Pollutants and Trace Gases
Carbon, Nitrogen Balances and Greenhouse Gas Emission during Cattle Feedlot Manure Composting
Xiying Hao*, Chi Chang and Francis J. Larney
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/37?etoc

***

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 10:09 AM

The National Center for Atmospheric Research & the UCAR Office of Programs

http://www.ucar.edu/research/

;)

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 10:26 AM

Earth Day Turns 35
By Brian C. Howard

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2481

On April 22, more than a half billion people around the world will celebrate the 35th annual Earth Day, making it the planet's largest secular holiday. The celebration will cut across boundaries of nations, ethnicities, faiths, philosophies and political orientations.

As the shepherding group Earth Day Network points out, the relatively new holiday really makes a difference. "Earth Day broadens the base of support for environmental programs, rekindles public commitment and builds community activism around the world through a broad range of events and activities," concludes the organization.

This year's theme is “Protect Our Children and Our Future,” and a number of events are planned to highlight the threats of air and water pollution, particularly in inner city communities. Kathleen Rogers, the president of Earth Day Network, explains, "While progress has been made, many of those problems still exist, especially among children, the poor and other vulnerable populations. On this important anniversary we are bringing people together to focus on those environmental concerns that threaten the environment our children are growing up in.”

In fact, a lot has changed since more than 20 million people rallied around the first Earth Day in 1970. Many environmentalists were deeply disappointed at their failure to get green issues seriously considered in the course of the heated 2004 national elections. And as E reports in our upcoming May/June 2005 cover story "Trashing the Greens," in 1992, according to Canada-based Environics Research Group, 17 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “pollution [is] necessary to preserve jobs,” whereas in 2004, a whopping 29 percent agreed with it. Even more disturbing are the controversial conclusions of Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, who argue in their hotly debated essay “The Death of Environmentalism” that only a quarter to a third of the American people are now firmly in the environmental camp—a dramatic drop from previous numbers.

What's going on? E's upcoming cover story will investigate many of the underlying forces that have conspired to push the environment essentially to the back burner of most Americans' lives, even though they literally can't live without it. Some of the chief suspects include systemic problems with the media and with our electoral politics, as well as the heightened effectiveness of ultra-right-wing foundations who are pushing a special interest agenda. But there are other forces at work as well.

Environmentalists are largely fighting a war of public opinion on two fronts, which is not an enviable position, as any general will tell you. On one hand is the age-old enemy of any social movement, regardless if it is right or left, religious or secular, or revolutionary or reactionary, and that is the demon apathy. It takes a lot of intellectual and emotional convincing to get someone to change a behavior. In today's world that often means people consume a lot of unnecessary and dirty products and services when better designed, more environmentally friendly options are readily available, from wind power over coal burning to high-tech hybrid cars over gas-guzzling behemoths to recycled-content toilet paper over the same product made from virgin fiber.

Let's face it, in its history, the environmental movement has seen the biggest gains in support after big disasters and outrageous atrocities, from the Exxon Valdez spill to rivers catching on fire and nuclear meltdowns. These big events can shock people into making a difference, but they shouldn't be the only impetus.

The other front is the ongoing "culture war," in which the recently emboldened conservative power brokers in this country are leading a new crusade of anti-environmentalism. Whether it is motivated by a particular strain of religious zeal or pure pocketbook selfishness, big business and its allies in the Republican Party are working hard to roll back environmental protections and progress. At the grassroots, many people are not hearing the green message and fall in line with their peer groups, which take their cues from community leaders and on up the hierarchy to the White House, which is one of the most anti-environmental administrations in history.

Those waging a cultural backlash against environmentalism unfairly exploit the vagaries of scientific uncertainty and the complexity and perceived subtlety of today's environmental problems. For instance, Ross Gelbspan recently wrote in Mother Jones that as a direct result of highly coordinated public relations efforts on global warming, "The press accorded the same weight to the industry-funded skeptics as it did to mainstream scientists, creating an enduring confusion in the public mind."

Thus, special interests can appeal to apathy and work to head off any discussion of sensible changes to address the threat of climate change by continually harping on over-inflated charges that the "scientific jury" is still out, when actually, "What we know about the climate comes from the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history--the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," as Gelbspan writes.

Similarly, naysayers of the environmental movement like to point out that the U.S.'s air and water are cleaner than they have been in decades, and that there are more trees. First, that speaks to the effectiveness of environmentalism. Second, while there may be more trees than 100 years ago in much of the country, there aren't more virgin stands of timber, and any ecologist will tell you that you therefore are talking about very different ecosystems that have their own needs and "values." Further, as Shellenberger puts it, “Thirty or 40 years ago the environmental problems were cleaning up the air and water, very straightforward and simple to deal with… But now we’re talking about mass extinction, global warming, an oceans crisis…” In other words, just because the air and water may be cleaner by some measures doesn't mean other threats aren't on the horizon.

Earth Day Network helps coordinate more than 12,000 organizations in 174 countries, leading to a highly diverse range of local events and festivities each year. For example, this Earth Day will feature an historic environmental rally in Kiev, Ukraine, where leaders of the new democratic government will address more than 250,000 citizens. There will be actions in China and South America, and a conference on water issues in the Middle East.

In the U.S., a tremendous range of activities are planned. Take Austin, Texas, for instance, which has no fewer than 12 Earth Day 2005 events listed on Earth Day Network's online calendar. More than 1,000 Austin volunteers are expected to help remove invasive species, pick up trash, build trails, plant native plants and more. If that sounds too strenuous, consider dining al fresco with The Progressive Potluckers, the Austin Parks Foundation and members of the AustinEcoNetwork Eat, Drink and Be Earthy. At this decidedly "low key" event, kite flying, Frisbee throwing, swimming in springs and other fun activities are encouraged.

In Chicago, Friends of the Parks will be organizing volunteer efforts all around the Windy City. In San Francisco, there will be beach cleanups; a special event with folk musician Joni Mitchell (who's song "Big Yellow Taxi" helped energize the first Earth Day events in 1970); a "Wild, Wild Wetland Jam" that features wetland restoration activities, bird tours, entertainment, a community talent show, a dessert contest and games; and a day of "green" films, art installations, live music and other activities at the Sony Metreon complex.

The natural products retailer Whole Foods will be hosting composting workshops and other programs at many of its stores, and natural cosmetics and hair-care company Aveda will host highlights of its "April is Earth Month" campaign, during which the company is working to raise $1 million for conservation and collect 100,000 signatures to support the Endangered Species Act.

Getting involved with Earth Day is a cinch, and it's fun. Some people consider the holiday to be a prime opportunity to display an Earth Flag (with the globe on a blue field) or other symbol of their patriotism in the human species as a whole and our critical role as stewards (whether we like it or not) of the global environment.

Hopefully, this Earth Day will provide an opportunity for people of all stripes to debate the issues, make positive changes, get organized and get to know the world around them a little better. Earth Day is for all of us, as well as for every living thing.

Brian C. Howard is Managing Editor of E.

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 10:38 AM

Global Change Research

http://www.lternet.edu/global_change/

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 10:44 AM

American Institute of Physics: The Discovery of Global Warming

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

;)

Boomer Chick

04-21-2005, 10:53 AM

Hello Jay Reynolds and Halva! Miss you both ! Well, the Jay energy still exists here......seems like Jay. If it walks and talks (writes and researches) like a Jay.... well..... you know ! :p

magistre

04-21-2005, 04:25 PM

It is interesting with all the hurricanes that happened last summer. there was a special on the (Science/Nat.Geo.channel) that dealt with the Gulf Stream's effects on the European continent but what I found most interesting was the mention that they searched for the current that returns col water to the mid-Atlantic. Because of the amount of fresh water run off (from melting glaciers,etc.) there is no cold water return. The temperature of the mid-Atlanic was reported as being 1degree to 2degrees warmer than usual last summer, what will it be next summer?

(I was talking to a lady last month who had just returned from vacation in Central America and she said that whereas the temperature was usually in the 70's this time of year,this year it was in the 90's)

halva

04-21-2005, 09:34 PM

You wouldn't be pulling my chain there, would you?

(Just kidding.)

<schnark>

So.

Excellent. Things are definitely looking up in here.

Best Regards...

:cool:

Foot_soldier it would be so nice to be able to believe, on the strength of an apology from WMM, that things are looking up.

White Majik Man, if your apologetic frame of mind is really something permanent, and not just a chance by-product of the balance of forces (or apparent balance of forces) on this forum, there is a young man formerly employed by Greenpeace in Athens Greece to whom you likewise owe an apology, I would say.

If you want to know how to contact him, get in touch with me privately.

jayreynolds

04-22-2005, 12:48 PM

Among the possible consequences of disruption in almost any marine ecosystem is an increase in the opportunistic pathogens that can abet the spread of human disease, sometimes to widespread proportions. One example is cholera.
Cholera

In 1991, the cholera pandemic reached the Americas, and during the first eighteen months more than half a million cases were reported in Latin America, with 5,000 deaths. Rapid institution of oral rehydration treatment--with clean water, sugar, and salts--limited fatalities in the Americas to about one in a hundred cases. The epidemics also had serious economic consequences. In 1991, Peru lost $770 million in seafood exports and another $250 million in lost tourist revenues because of the disease.

I'll be glad to pull the rug a little further out from under Dr. Epstein. The Dr wrote the scaremongering "Global Catastrophe" text above in 1997, and described the cholera epidemic in Peru six years earlier as if it were part of some "disruption of a marine ecosystem".

Nothing could be further from the truth, that is, unless you count incredibly stupid government actions as a "change".

The facts of the matter are that the Peruvian cholera epidemic came as a direct result of lack of water chlorination in the capital city, Lima.

But don't take my word for it.
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/cholera/cholera.html
Even Greenpeace agrees with me.........

Oh, and now ask yourself why a Medical Doctor from Harvard Medical School would try and make a MAN-MADE epidemic out to be the fault of marine disruption, or to make you falsely believe molds sporulate more because of CO2 increases?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!
If we look further, can we get three strikes against the "good" Doctor"?
What sort of science is this, people?

Boomer Chick

04-22-2005, 02:50 PM

I don't care if someone here dislikes Amy Goodman. That's not the point. She interviews various personalities and this is a rather insightful and relevant interview.

Friday, April 22nd, 2005
Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1338256

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming. We speak with the author of the report, a member of one the organizations that receives money from Exxon and a journalist covering environmental and climate change issues. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today is the 35th anniversary of Earth Day. To commemorate the occasion we take a look at the debate over global warming.
A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming.

We are joined on the line from Washington DC by Chris Mooney, the reporter who broke the story. His article - "Some Like It Hot" - appears in the May/June issue of Mother Jones magazine. We are also joined on the line by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of 40 organizations identified in the report that receives funding from Exxon/Mobil. According to the article, CEI has received $1,380,000 dollars from Exxon. And on the line from Massachusetts we have journalist and author Ross Gelbspan. He also has an article titled "Snowed" in the latest issue of Mother Jones that explores why the U.S media pays relatively little attention to the issue of global climate change.

Chris Mooney, a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C., and a senior correspondent for the American Prospect magazine. He focuses on issues at the intersection of science and politics. His first book, "The Republican War on Science will be published in September.
Myron Ebell, oversees all global warming and international environmental work at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author. As special projects editor of The Boston Globe, he conceived, directed and edited a series of articles that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984. He is author of "The Heat is On: The High Stakes Battle Over Earth's Threatened Climate."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: On the line from Massachusetts, we have journalist and author, Ross Gelbspan. He has an article in latest issue of Mother Jones that explores why the U.S. media pays relatively little attention to the issue of global warming. We go first to Chris Mooney, author of “Some Like It Hot.” Can you talk about your investigation into who funds the groups that question global warming?

CHRIS MOONEY: Sure. Amy, thanks for having me. In this Mother Jones article, I essentially started out from the premise which I knew, because I had had written on climate change before, that there were a lot of organizations out there that were challenging what is essentially the scientific consensus view that humans are causing global warming or challenging other aspects of climate science. And what we did was essentially a correlation or analysis where we looked at what the organizations were saying in terms of what they were saying about climate science. And sure enough, we found that a number of the organizations were actually receiving funding from ExxonMobil.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about who these organizations are?

CHRIS MOONEY: Well, by and large, they are -- I would describe them as think tanks and public policy groups, largely on the sort of -- on the right with free market principles, or sort of a more free market agenda. But, you know, that's one thing, but they're actually arguing about in a lot of cases the scientific content of whether global warming is happening, how serious it's going to be, what are the impacts, etc.

AMY GOODMAN: Ross Gelbspan, can you talk about this debate around global warming?

ROSS GELBSPAN: I can, Amy. And again, thanks so much for giving this subject the air time this morning. The very fact that you are using the word debate shows how pervasive this campaign of disinformation and deception has been. There really is no debate about global warming. What you have on the one side are more 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the U.N. in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. What you have on the other side are basically a very small handful of so-called greenhouse skeptics, the majority of whom have been paid by the coal and oil industries, and for that reason, it has -- because of the megaphone they have been given by industry, they have created the impression in the minds of journalists that it is really a debate, and as a result, most stories, until recently, have portrayed it as a he said/she said kind of thing. And I think the public basically took the attitude after a while, that, you know, come back and tell us what you know when you make up your mind. And as a result, the public has sort of turned off to this issue, even as the signals from the planet are becoming very shrill, and the timetable for action is very slow and narrow.

AMY GOODMAN: Myron Ebell, you're with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as Chris Mooney says, one of the organizations that receives a good deal of money, more than $1 million from ExxonMobil. can you respond to what these authors have said?

MYRON EBELL: Well, you know, I -- Chris Mooney, I don't really have much against his article, and I think he's shown that there are a number of groups that mostly, as he said, on the conservative side that oppose the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty and oppose energy rationing policies. This is -- it’s not a surprise that Exxon funds them, because I think Exxon is one of the very few corporations that posts all of its charitable contributions to non-profit groups on its website. So, I think anybody who is listening can go and look at those. Most corporations don't. It would probably be a good idea if they did. The -- you know, this large megaphone that we have, I'm a little bit surprised that Ross Gelbspan has mentioned that, because, of course, the environmental movement, which largely spends a lot of its effort supporting the Kyoto Protocol and energy rationing policies is a huge industry. The Sacramento Bee a couple years ago, maybe it's three years ago now, estimated it was an $8.5 billion a year industry. Now, a lot of that is local groups, but if you just take the big groups, you see it's about a $3 billion a year industry, just the big groups here in Washington, D.C., which is, you know, a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the effort on the conservative side on these issues. So, I don't think we're winning this debate because we have a bigger megaphone.

continued....

Boomer Chick

04-22-2005, 02:51 PM

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to go to break, and then we're going to come back and have a discussion and debate on this issue. Our guests, Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, author Ross Gelbspan, as well as Chris Mooney. Both have pieces in this month's edition of Mother Jones magazine on global warming. It's the 35th anniversary of Earth Day. This is Democracy Now!

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: I'm Amy Goodman, as we talk about global warming on this 35th anniversary of Earth Day, April 22, 1970, the first time it was celebrated. We're joined on the telephone right now from Washington, D.C., by Chris Mooney. He's the author of a piece in Mother Jones magazine called, "Some Like It Hot." “Forty public policy groups have this in common,” he writes. “They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat, and they all get money from ExxonMobil.” Ross Gelbspan is also with us, has a piece in that issue of Mother Jones called, "Snowed." He is a well-known environmental writer. And joining us on the line also from Washington is Myron Ebell. He is with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And I wanted to ask Ross Gelbspan if you can respond to Myron Ebell about this issue of global warming and whether it really is a problem.

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, before I respond as to whether it's a problem, Amy, I'd like it respond to what Myron said about the amount of money spent on this disinformation campaign. I had figures a few years back – and when there was a large organization called the Global Climate Coalition. It had 54 industry members. These were mostly representatives of the coal and oil and auto and every manufacturing sector, and a few years ago, the last year for which I had figures, the Global Climate Coalition spent millions and millions of dollars on lobbying and public relations to say that climate [change] isn't happening. One member group of this 54 group organization, the A.P.I., paid $1.8 million to a public relations firm on this issue, and by comparison, the five biggest environmental groups that also focused on climate change spent a total of $2 million, according to their own organizations. So there's a huge mismatch in terms of the financial issues that -- the financial outlays in terms of fighting this battle for reality, basically, and for the public perception.

But to step back for a second, when you are asking me how serious it is, the head of this intergovernmental panel on climate change, Dr. Ragendra Pachauri, said recently that we have about a ten-year window to make very, very deep cuts in our carbon fuel use, if, quote, “humanity is to survive.” This is a scientist. He speaks normally in very conservative and measured language. So, to hear that kind of talk is very, very troubling. Just to give you one last quick example, scientists have documented already the deep oceans are warming, the glaciers are melting, the icecaps are falling apart. We're seeing violent weather increase. We’re seeing a change in the timing of the seasons. And all of that has happened from one degree of warming. By contrast, we're now looking to a century of three to ten degrees of warming. So, I think the urgency is very, very important.

AMY GOODMAN: Myron Ebell of Competitive Enterprise Institute, your response?

MYRON EBELL: Well, you want me to respond to that. I hope we can get Chris back into this. Look, again, it's easy to talk about big, bad industry and how powerful it is. Yes, industries do spend a lot of money on P.R. and lobbying, but if you are looking at the non-profit world which Chris Mooney's article does, we're really just small potatoes, and in fact, Bill McKibben recognizes that in his article, also in Mother Jones, when he calls us “a small group of clever and committed people,” and says what we have done to turn the global warming debate is one of the most mightiest political feats of our time. I think that may be a little exaggerated, but then what Ross Gelbspan says about global warming is very exaggerated. Dr. Pachauri, he’s a conservative, buttoned-down individual, yeah. When he was in Denmark, he called Bjorn Lomborg worse than Hitler. So, look, so that's how careful he is in his speech. The global warming debate has turned from a scientific one where the I.P.C.C. publishes thousands of page reports which by and large are extremely good, which several thousand scientists work on. They do not all agree with the conclusions in the summary for policy makers, which is, you know, three 20-page summaries written by governments. These summaries then are abstracted by advocates for global warming alarmism to say, “Oh, we're going to have lots more big storms. We're going to have lots more this.” No, that isn't what the report says. The report, the third assessment report -- I have it sitting here, it's a huge document published by Cambridge University Press -- is not an alarmist document. And you can go through and find some things that are alarming and a lot of reasons not to be alarmed.

continued....

Boomer Chick

04-22-2005, 02:54 PM

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Mooney, would you like to respond?

CHRIS MOONEY: If I could jump in on that. I don't think that that's actually a fair assessment of what the I.P.C.C. actually says. And I actually have a quote here from the National Academy of Sciences in 2001. I'd just like to read it to you, because what the National Academy said in 2001 is that the I.P.C.C.'s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. And I think that that's really what's at stake here. And the National Academy is essentially ratifying what the I.P.C.C. had included in its summary for policymakers, I might add.

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Mooney, you begin your piece by talking about the anti-environmentalist novel by Michael Crichton, State of Fear. Can you talk about the significance of this in popular culture and where you go from there?

CHRIS MOONEY: Well yes, I mean the scientific significance of it is probably not nearly as significant as the role that it's playing in terms of giving those who are questioning both the scientific basis for action on climate change and actually, you know, the economic basis as well, something to rally around. I think that Michael Crichton has become somewhat of a hero for what I would term the “skeptic camp” and also a lot of the think tanks that are sort of part of that camp, and that is because he's a prominent author. He has at least some scientific credential in medicine, not, obviously, in climate science. And he certainly has a megaphone. And so these groups have sort of rallied to him. Meanwhile, the scientists who are working in this area have been none too pleased with some of the statements in the book.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk more about his book, State of Fear, and the impact that it has had, and what it is about, for those who have not read it?

CHRIS MOONEY: Oh, right, well, I mean, State of Fear, it's a novel, right? I mean, it's a novel laden with footnotes and charts and notes and author commentary that make it sort of a strange mélange of fact and fiction. And in it, essentially environment groups conspire --because global warming isn't happening in the context of this book, environmental groups conspire to make people think it's happening by causing big disasters. So, you know, a lot of people think it's sort of wrong-headed, and I think that I would probably agree with that.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes. You also refer to Steven Milloy, the columnist with FoxNews.com, who runs two groups out of his home that have received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. What are these groups?

CHRIS MOONEY: Well, essentially, we -- you know, when we were going through the list of organizations that were supported, we found two, and we wanted to learn more about them. One of them was called the Advancement of Sound Science Center, and one of them was called the Free Enterprise Action Institute. And sure enough, we found that these were organizations that were linked to Steven Milloy. And this is a commentator who essentially debunks a wide range of sort of environmental, public health and other concerns under the auspices of his JunkScience.com website, but also in the media, including for FoxNews.com. And it wasn't ever disclosed, at least as far as we could tell. We didn't see a case in which it was disclosed that actually in some of the places where he's debunking global warming concerns that, actually, you know, he's actually been receiving funding from a company that obviously would have an economic stake in climate change policies.

AMY GOODMAN: And you spend almost two pages with a chart, “Put a Tiger in Your Think Tank.” Since you're very clear about naming names, if you could go through these, as well as what you call the Cold Earth Society. Who the people are that you single out?

CHRIS MOONEY: Actually, I mean, I didn't actually write that chart. I mean, that's a part of the whole presentation, but I mean, I'm certainly happy to talk about some of the organizations. We have Myron Ebell on the line, so we can just, you know, we can start with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is clearly one of the organizations that is most prominent, I think, in sort of arguing both against climate change policies on an economic level, which I think, you know, I just disagree with them maybe about that, but actually on the scientific level then, I think it actually gets into the area of being misleading, when the scientific basis is being challenged and we have such a strong scientific consensus. So one of the things that Myron's group has done is challenging the U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change, and they have actually gone to court to challenge this document, which is a well regarded scientific report produced during the Clinton Administration, and it's actually been praised by the National Academy of Sciences. Again, I will just quote again from the same National Academy report that I was quoting before, when it talked about the National Assessment, it said, “It provides a basis for summarizing the potential consequences of climate change.” And then it went on to base two pages of the National Academy of Sciences report on this National Assessment report. So clearly, the National Academy of Sciences doesn't see it as being a particularly problematic or troublesome document. So I'm talking specifically about attacks on the science of climate change, not the economics which is something that people can argue about.

continued...

Boomer Chick

04-22-2005, 02:56 PM

AMY GOODMAN: Myron Ebell of Competitive Enterprise Institute.

MYRON EBELL: Well, you know, I don't think that the -- to go back to what Chris first said, I don't think that the statement he read from the National Academy of Sciences is alarming, and in fact, I don't see much reason to disagree with it. The fact is, it's -- there's a sort of a tissue of -- you start with the premise that the climate is changing, and pretty soon, you are talking about how scary it is. Well, the climate is changing all the time. The impacts are significant. If you look at the United States, for example, there is no warming or cooling trend if you average out the entire country. That's true for quite a long time going back into the past. However, there are significant climate changes going on. The Pacific Northwest is warming up. The Atlantic Southeast, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, the Carolinas, are cooling down. These are long term trends, 30, 40 years. They're very significant. They have costs. They have environmental impact. And we have to deal with it. You can’t predict, on the basis of knowing what the global mean temperature is and whether it's going up or going down, that the Pacific Northwest is warming up and the Atlantic Southeast is cooling down. There's no way to get that. So, again, I think it's -- a lot of the alarmism is based on absolutely un-alarming statements, which have been sort of whipped up into a frenzy by people who really ought to know better.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Ross Gelbspan, giving you the last word.

ROSS GELBSPAN: Real briefly, what Myron is saying about temperatures is really very, very misleading. 1998 was the hottest year on record, and 2001 replaced 1997 as number two. 2004 was the fourth hottest year on record. So, globally what's happening is that the planet is warming. And what we're seeing also is a much more unstable kind of climate with many more storms and more changes and more surprises. We're seeing shorter, more severe winters, which will begin to take a much bigger toll on agriculture. There's no question about the larger trends of what's happening in the climate, regardless of how you cut it. And as the head of the I.P.C.C. said a couple of years ago, there is no debate among any statured scientist at all about the larger trends of what's happening to the climate. So, I think that's very disingenuous. And I think it's very important to understand again that we have a really short time for action.

And I'll go back to one study that was put out by a major group of scientists and policymakers at the beginning of the year, which said that we now have 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Traditionally that number was 280. When it reaches 400 parts per million, which will be within the next 10-15 years, that correlates with an increase of 2 degrees Celsius in the average global temperature, and that is the point at which a lot of impacts begin to sort of take on their own momentum and become runaway impacts. So scientists are really concerned about changes in the Gulf Stream, rapid temperature changes, die-offs of the forests, all kinds of things like this, which will begin to happen in a very, very short time if we keep pumping out all of these carbon fuels. And this is not alarmism. This is from the scientific community. And there is really no debate about what's happening to the climate among the mainstream body of climate scientists.

AMY GOODMAN: Ross Gelbspan, we’ll have to leave it there. I want to thank you for being with us. As well, I want to thank Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Chris Mooney. Both Chris Mooney and Ross Gelbspan have pieces in this month's issue of Mother Jones. The title of the issue, "As the World Burns."

***

Boomer Chick

04-22-2005, 03:27 PM

Global Warming Skeptic Argues US Position in Suit
Science Magazine (subscription) - USA

The US government has enlisted an outspoken skeptic of global warming in a legal fight with environmental groups over US funding for overseas energy projects. ...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5721/482

***

No Quick Fix for environmental problems:

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20050420.092019&time=09%2041%20PDT&year=2005&public=0

***

jayreynolds

04-22-2005, 06:45 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lewis200504080955.asp

April 08, 2005, 9:55 a.m.
Crazy on Carbon Dioxide
Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency threatens to impose an energy-rationing regime.

By Marlo Lewis

Friday, the D.C. circuit court of appeals hears oral arguments in Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Plaintiffs, who include the attorneys general (AGs) of 12 states, are suing the EPA for rejecting an October 1999 petition by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and several other environmental groups to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from motor vehicles. In effect, plaintiffs demand that EPA impose the Kyoto Protocol — a non-ratified treaty — on U.S. automakers. They hope via litigation not only to substitute their will for that of the people's elected representatives, but also to price and regulate millions of Americans out of the market for large, safe, high-performance vehicles.

Economy in the Balance
Carbon dioxide is the inescapable combustion byproduct of gasoline and other carbon-based fuels. Larger, heavier vehicles use more fuel per mile driven, and consequently emit more grams of CO2 per mile. If plaintiffs prevail, EPA will have to require automakers to downsize and/or restrict production of SUVs, large passenger cars, and other high-CO2-emitting vehicles — the very vehicles that are Detroit's biggest sellers. So at a minimum, a victory for plaintiffs will restrict consumer choice and further erode the competitiveness of U.S. automakers.

Even more damaging is the precedent that the plaintiffs hope to set. If the court compels the EPA to classify CO2 as a regulated pollutant, it will unleash a torrent of copycat lawsuits. Future suits will demand that the EPA both curb CO2 emissions from other sectors and continually tighten the controls. Even though President Bush, significant congressional majorities, and most voters oppose the Kyoto treaty, the flood of litigation would establish a national energy-rationing system indistinguishable from Kyoto.

The good news is that plaintiffs are going to lose, because CO2 regulation is patently illegal under both the CAA and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).

Usurpation by Litigation
To see why plaintiffs' suit is without merit, it suffices to ask two simple questions: Why was the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which seeks to cap CO2 emissions from all U.S. economic sectors, arguably the most controversial piece of legislation to come to a vote in the 108th Congress? And why is the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which would require more stringent CO2 emission reductions, arguably the most controversial treaty to be debated by U.S. policymakers in the past nine years?

The answer is that both Kyoto and McCain-Lieberman would fundamentally alter U.S. law and regulatory policy on the production and use of energy. The federal government has never regulated CO2 emissions — that is hardly surprising. Carbon dioxide is the intended combustion byproduct of the carbonaceous fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas — that supply roughly 85 percent of all the energy Americans use. The power to restrict CO2 emissions is literally the power to cripple U.S. productivity, competitiveness, and growth.

The Senate preemptively rejected Kyoto as too costly and unfair to the United States when, in July 1997, it passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution by a 95-0 vote. The Senate similarly rejected McCain-Lieberman by 55-43 on October 30, 2003. Yet the AGs and their allies claim that EPA has a mandatory duty to regulate CO2. Their lawsuit implies that Kyoto and McCain-Lieberman, in substance if not detail, are already the law of the land — a preposterous opinion. What the plaintiffs are really trying to do is usurp Congress's lawmaking power. They are attempting, through not-very-clever legalisms, to install an energy-rationing regime that Congress never approved. And many of the plaintiffs are AGs, sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Further sections:
Defying Common Sense
The Mantra of Preexisting Authority
CO2 Is Not an Air Pollutant
No Automatic Regulatory Trigger
Begging the Key Question
Fuel Economy by Another Name

(continued at above link)

jayreynolds

04-22-2005, 06:58 PM

I don't care if someone here dislikes Amy Goodman. That's not the point. She interviews various personalities and this is a rather insightful and relevant interview.
..
You know, BC, the one question Amy left begging was why the promoters of the global warming idea are having such a hard time convincing the people that what they say is true. I recently posted about the billions upon billions that have been spent trying, but it seems that Ross Gelbspan and Chris Mooney just don't have what it takes to get their message across, despite all the money and time spent on scaremongering. I'll tell you right now, they have the full resources of the BBC and PBS at their fingertips, but whatever they are doing, it just isn't working. All their hard work, it seems, get's obliterated by just a handful of people with a few million dollars.

Why is that?
I sure wish Amy had given Gelbspan and Mooney some hardball questions, because they need to answer for their lack of progress, don't you think?

Boomer Chick

04-23-2005, 10:17 AM

Mehan: Income and Environmental Quality: There is a point here and it is a good one. However, all people of all incomes need to realize their lifestyle impacts upon their environment, and that will be the challenge and goal of enivironmental education and outreach in the various global and national communities. Education is the key.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mehan200504220752.asp

HUMOR !!!!

April 22, 2005, 7:46 a.m.
The Nature of Conflict
Friends of animals get selective.

By Bruce Stockler

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/stockler200504220746.asp

"Audubon Group Advocates Deer Hunting" — recent headline in the New York Times

The New Jersey chapter of the conservationally ambiguous organization announced it has grown tired and bored of protecting deer, which one member characterized as "vermin with Paris Hilton's bone structure," and that the membership instead looks forward to seeing deer not only culled by hunters, but also mowed down by speeding cars, butchered by sleepy truck drivers, trapped alive under boulders, and picked off by emotionally disturbed children armed with slingshots and flaming bottles of gasoline.

The hitherto pacifistic group also announced it has begun a trial program of tossing hamsters into the Hudson River and shaving the fur off of seeing-eye dogs to produce limited-edition fur coats to wear to rave-up parties.

The leadership committee of the society could not be reached for comment. An inside source said that senior members were out in the woods, throwing hand grenades at black bears.

The previously fauna-minded organization is funding research into a number of new animal-related technologies, including cat-sized napalm bombs, mountain cabins that automatically fall onto cougars and goats, and satellites that can project deadly laser beams onto pet monkeys.

Mailboxes, lawn ornaments, and garbage cans rigged with C-4, anthrax spores, and sarin gas are inexplicably available for sale on the group's website. "Nuke Iran" T-shirts and "Let Your Faucets Run!" wall calendars were offered at $13.95.

Mechanical robots programmed to smash owls, penguins, and great auks together in their giant, mechanized hands are also in development. "Animals that fly are creepy," said one Audubon member, who was eating Siberian-Tiger-and-cheese fritters.

In a statement, the once vaguely left-leaning group also admitted it had spent $89,000 to market giant panda legs to leading French chefs as an alternative to frogs legs.

In its online calendar for 2006, the group's "Fun Raising" events include running giant pandas over with lawn mowers, firing Asian elephants into outer space and stuffing lowland gorillas into particle accelerators.

An initiative to throw empty bottles and old refrigerators into the Grand Canyon will begin this summer.

The pastorally challenged coalition is expanding internationally. First project: A partnership with oil and mining conglomerates to drill giant holes down to the center of the earth to find out if the planet can be nudged off its rotational axis. The indefinably evolving society will also launch a publicity campaign to promote skin cancer, e-coli, and radiation poisoning as unfairly maligned and misunderstood components of the modern healthy lifestyle.

— This humor piece was written by Bruce Stockler, a public-relations consultant in New York. He is author of I Sleep At Red Lights: A True Story of Life After Triplets.

***

Boomer Chick

04-23-2005, 10:20 AM

"Hot Air Day" Some positives to consider! I would incorporate these and be thankful that environmental efforts in the past couple of decades have been indeed positive and good, but the lesson is: DO NOT REST ON YOUR LAURELS. The Montreal Protocol, and various acts passed by Congress and states, as well as environmental organizational pressure and education have secured these changes. So just broadbrushstroking the environmental community as though it had NOTHING to do with the mentioned changes, makes no sense either. So yes, with the awareness level raised through the efforts of educators and environmentalists including environmental lobbyists, publications, outreach, and legislation at various levels which have stimulated basic awareness in all citizens, we have made strides in America. But there's more work to be done.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pipes200504220745.asp

***

Jay, issues regarding the environment are NOT bi-partisan issues. They affect all of us, the air we breathe, the kinds of energy we use, and the agendas we hold as a nation regarding HOW we plan to transition to a no-oil based economy.
Since some in power now collude with the oil companies as evidenced by the recent energy bill complete with handouts to those companies of our taxpayer funds, this should give you a clue as to the difference of opinion regarding the transition itself.

These views: 1) to secure more oil at the cost of lives and constant resources wars 2) to funnel economic energy and growth into alternative energies while slowly weaning off of oil and simultaneously cleaning the environment of the emissions ---- are the two opposing views of the age. As has been evidenced, however, even the oil companies themselves are beginning to realize that if they themselves don't adapt, they will indeed cease to exist in the long term. They KNOW their resource dwindles, but some seek to make the most profits now, so they can secure their fortunes and slink off into retirement with their pockets full.

However, if they are wise, like BP, and other oil companies, they will invest and transition into alternative fuels with the rest of the world starting now, or they will simply be forced to dismantle in the short time frame. The old and the new, regardless of party, regardless of loyalties, come to a nexus right now. It's an amazing time, a time where wisdom and farsightedness will indeed pay off and create the world we all seek, in peace and economic prosperity with continued reduced wastes and the ultimate goal of a restored and healthy planet for all. The other view, the "old" view, of lack, fear, greed, and war.... will only slow the transition and might cause such planetary strife that very harmful unleashed weapons could actually destroy our planet's biosphere ====> us.

This goes beyond partisan politics and those in power will find out soon enough that those oil companies and energy companies of the "new" themselves, will propel the neocon small and fearful mindset out onto the fringes where they belong. Even conservatives and the Constitutionalist Republicans like Ron Paul know about and are awakening to the resource situation. Not only oil, but water will become a priority and issue and in the refinement, transportation, and distribution of water will come economic opportunities and alternative energy solutions as well.

Nope, the situation regarding Peak Oil is bigger than party politics and this is why I have hope. Your petty party politics has no place in this forum, Jay. Get off your narrow platform and stand on solid ground, please.

BC

jayreynolds

04-23-2005, 11:30 AM

Boomer Chick

04-23-2005, 12:21 PM

BC, we settled the resource war issue a couple of weeks ago, even though you declined to answer my final questions, you were forced to admit that the Iraqis retain control over their oil, so don't try and fall back on that or you'll gore yourself once again. As i said before, I have no qualms about the end of the age of fossil fuels, it will happen and better believe the oil companies have considered it. Most investors in that sort of blue chip industry have thirty year plans, doncha know?.

Of course I know, and some oil companies are ahead of others. Example: BP. No disagreement here, except that oil, in the neocon mindset, is still important. Once they get a clue as to funding alternative energies instead of occupations they'll further our nation's national security. The way they're going, they only hurt our national security and as I said, the oil companies themselves will clue them in.

Just can the scaremongering on the various fronts of climate, environment, and "peak oil" and maybe, just maybe, people will take your issue seriously. If you keep playing the same old song that nobody is buying, don't expect it to sell any better tomorrow than it has up to now. Maybe then the billions of dollars will be able to beat the millions laid out by "Demon Oil". Okay?

"....can the scare mongering?" Let's remember, that for any movement, the spectrum of human emotions plays its hand as well. Some are screaming "watch out.... change now.... get with a program... sign on the Kyoto... etc. etc." and most are moderate in their recognition of the need for transition regarding the climate as well as the Peak Oil. Why don't you get off your "scare mongering" rant and realize that human beings express themselves in a myriad of ways and that includes scientists, the Pentagon, and the journalists that respond to the data presented and that's life. You can't control it and you can't sit around and wish it were another way. If it weren't for the alarmists in any movement for change, the changes would come about so slowly that the potentials for those consequences of slow reaction time might prove extremely difficult. Given the slow rate of change even considering the alarmists and the "watchers," I find the town criers, if you will, a necessary and integral part of the social/political environment for change itself.

PS, If climate change was really a Democrat issue, why did they remove their call for Kyoto ratification from the platform?

Yeah, so? You confirmed my point. Change is beyond parties..... it's economic, it's national security, and it's global intelligence.

When you make a claim, like "scaremongering" Jay, you had better provide a link or an opinion statement of mine that supports your statement. If someone else, a scientist or journalist stated it, well then, quote that or link it. Thanks.

Your "scaremongering" supposition point is a dead horse, anyway. The spectrum of human emotions in the press and on the net will always present the harbinger town criers as more emphatic than the watchers. Companies hit in the pocketbook with higher environmental standards still put up a fight, but included in this movement are the exceptions: those companies that voluntarily and willingly invest in order to meet the standards and exceed them in many cases. There are even those that transition to alternative energies as well. So for every action there's a reaction and eventually everyone will get onboard for the plain and simple fact that it will be economically wise and environmentally sound at the same time.

No one espouses panic here. Drop the labelling and start reading the material offered. I don't agree with your supposition that the neocons never considered the oil in their planning for the Iraq occupation,either. As proven, it was the oil companies themselves that preserved nationalism of the oil itself in Iraq and their leaders defied the neocons' plans (proof in the Palast article), complying with OPEC in the process, purposefully. Too bad the insurgents continue to blow up the various pipelines. None of that is important, however, in the light of the reality of dwindling oil. And of course, the oil companies are aware, but only some will adapt as well as BP, as an example, and those that don't, well......into the dry oil well of history.

Our national security and economic prosperity depends on wise investment in alternative energies in this transition........... not wars, not occupations or cohersive attempts to control governments like Venezuela in order to secure a larger oil market from them. Already the U.S. receives 60% of the Venezuela's oil, so why offend their country (leaders) and risk their offended reaction for future oil sales? Makes no sense. Diplomacy and respect works far better than threatening, bullying abuse that the whole world can see. Do you get it, yet?

The countries that transition into alternative energies first and become independent first will have the global advantage, economically, when all the dust settles. How best to accomplish this is the question and the solution. Once that country is secure in their energy, they can offer assistence to others, sell their energy products, and share the wealth, while increasing wealth in other countries.

Any more issues, Jay? I think not. We're basically on the same page here!

BC

jayreynolds

04-23-2005, 05:05 PM

No one espouses panic here.
Uh-huh?
Like underground molds that[don't actually] sporulet more with increased CO2 concentration, and cholera epidemics that are claimed to be caused by "marine disruptions", yet are found to be caused by lack of water chlorination, eh?
Short memory?

jayreynolds

04-23-2005, 05:13 PM

The countries that transition into alternative energies first and become independent first will have the global advantage, economically, when all the dust settles. How best to accomplish this is the question and the solution. Once that country is secure in their energy, they can offer assistence to others, sell their energy products, and share the wealth, while increasing wealth in other countries.
I'm betting right now that the US will be the first to develop and adopt alternative enegry methods, without scaremongering.

We are usually first in the world, partly because we have the bucks it takes to make changes, and partly because the free enterprise system, patent protection, etc. allows quick adaptation to changing conditions and opportunities. As usual, we'll have to pay out the ying-yang to try and bring the rest of the world up to speed. Trying to force such things down people's throats using subterfuge and fear as a motivator doesn't ever work, however. Usually it swings the pedulum in ways that beget unintended consequences, and leaves openings for abuse by interests who aren't all that beneficial. Beware of change. There is an old West Indian saying-
"You know what you got, but you don't know what you gonna git".

whitemajikman

04-24-2005, 09:52 AM

I'm betting right now that the US will be the first to develop and adopt alternative enegry methods, without scaremongering.

We are usually first in the world, partly because we have the bucks it takes to make changes, and partly because the free enterprise system, patent protection, etc. allows quick adaptation to changing conditions and opportunities. As usual, we'll have to pay out the ying-yang to try and bring the rest of the world up to speed. Trying to force such things down people's throats using subterfuge and fear as a motivator doesn't ever work, however. Usually it swings the pedulum in ways that beget unintended consequences, and leaves openings for abuse by interests who aren't all that beneficial. Beware of change. There is an old West Indian saying-
"You know what you got, but you don't know what you gonna git".

I am Glad That You have a lot of Faith.....JAY.......

But ScareMongering Is Needed.......

Because without it The message is left on deaf ears.......

I Ask You Honestly Jay........

Would Change Occur.......As Rapidly As Needed.......

WITH OUT IT......?

Sometimes a little fear is healthy.......

in that it makes people look at different perspectives.......

Most of which they have rejected in the past...........

Due to complacency.........

WMM

Boomer Chick

04-24-2005, 01:19 PM

I am Glad That You have a lot of Faith.....JAY.......

But ScareMongering Is Needed.......

Because without it The message is left on deaf ears.......

I Ask You Honestly Jay........

Would Change Occur.......As Rapidly As Needed.......

WITH OUT IT......?

Sometimes a little fear is healthy.......

in that it makes people look at different perspectives.......

Most of which they have rejected in the past...........

Due to complacency.........

WMM

Excellent points, WMM ! This is precisely my point. The "Paul Reveres" and the "town criers" are the ones who push change more than the moderates and "watchers" who get nothing done, not to mention those who fear change and economically refuse to invest in change. When the change needed is only good, and adapts to a multiplicity of problems through that change..... how could it harm? Alternative energies and even carbon control will not only create jobs, but clean the atmosphere and transition our whole nation into the future in a timely manner WITHOUT any dire consequences.

Jay, when you express:

"Trying to force such things down people's throats using subterfuge and fear as a motivator doesn't ever work, however. Usually it swings the pedulum in ways that beget unintended consequences, and leaves openings for abuse by interests who aren't all that beneficial. Beware of change. "

...you are indeed supporting the very ethic we justice watchers have screamed about regarding the administration's reasons for invading Iraq: "subterfuge and fear". How perfect of you to frame it as such. And I would note that if you do not see that form of political propaganda eminating from the neocons, and you instead see it emanating from those who push and prod us into environmental and energy responsibility ...... you are practicing a form of denial and projection. The very modes of moving public opinion in regard to life and death issues concerning war and peace far outweigh, in any moral sense, the modes of concerned groups and citizens, from Congressmen to aware oil CEOs and energy company CEOs to accept the investments now in preparing for the future of dwindling resources. On one hand, lives are ruined and snuffed, and on the other money exchanges hands. How could you even feel morally compelled to criticize those who would feel the need to divert tax payer funds from war to clean up our air, develop non-petroleum based energies, and move us all into a clean and bright future with jobs and opportunities for our nation as well as all other nations?

A person or group who fears change, when all signs point to the necessity for change, only stands as a friction, a backward and a retrograde movement to those who would further our very survival. Even your lifestyle, Jay, belies your very words. You yourself practice a lifestyle that conserves resources, conserves carbon, and utilizes renewable energies in the forms of biomass and natural fertilizers, rather than chemically based products. It in these same kinds of changes, these conservation, energy-efficient, and innovative environmental friendly earth- conscious, and humanitarian attitudes that will on the large and small scale ..... change our world. You're already part of that.

Face the facts, Jay. Our national government moves slowly, decides upon protocols and bills with economic and lobbyists' concerns in mind, and the tensions between those who see economic opportunities in the "new" areas (peace, R & D, cooperation) conflict with those whose economic interests lie in the "old" areas (war, oil, lack, bullying) . Do I have to repeat myself? And yet, I see hope in those oil companies transitioning now, instead of later.

SCARE TACTICS ARE USED IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROPAGANDA on just about ANY ISSUE THEY WISH TO FURTHER!!!!! I will support this statement later.

As a moral citizen concerned about problem-solving and truth, regarding our future as a civilization, I find your concern over environmental "Paul Reveres" petty and shallow compared to the real concerns of war and peace. Worrying about money being spent now to move us into alternative energies so that we need not depend on ANY other country's oil...... AND in the process, clean our atmosphere..... is a wasted emotional energy propositon based on a moral argument that withers in the greater light of life and death issues regarding war and foreign policy used to dominate energy markets.

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

A. Continued funding into defense and weaponry, wars, a draft, and fighting over resources?

B. Redistributing funding into alternative energy R & D, cooperation in the world, and economic prosperity..... peace.

I CHOOSE B .

We are NOT the alternative energy leaders in the world at this time. But we certainly could be if it were a national priority. ( Will post a link on this, too.)

AND WHAT MIGHT YOUR "unintended consequences" and "abuse of interests" BE? Pray tell? If you are going to make such statements, you had better define them!!!!

TTFN,

BC

Yaak

04-24-2005, 04:00 PM

The "Paul Reveres" and the "town criers" are the ones who push change more than the moderates and "watchers" who get nothing done, not to mention those who fear change and economically refuse to invest in change.
It is imperative that the "Paul Reveres" and "town criers" speak only truth and facts. If not, they will do far more damage to their cause than the "moderates" and "watchers". We all know what "crying wolf" accomplishes.

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

A. Continued funding into defense and weaponry, wars, a draft, and fighting over resources?

B. Redistributing funding into alternative energy R & D, cooperation in the world, and economic prosperity..... peace.
I choose C.

C. "Carry a big stick, and speak softly." Fund that big stick, but use it for defense ONLY.
Provide leadership and guidance, and, maybe, incentives, but no funding for "alternative energy R & D". Let the free market place drive the research and development of alternate forms of energy.

foot_soldier

04-24-2005, 04:43 PM

I have an idea for avoiding the unwitting propagation of material that could be characterized as "scaremongering."

When posting articles that comment on direct observation of actual events in progress or that include current findings of the research community in regard to various climate change-related issues, I suggest deleting all nouns, verbs and adjectives. That way no one can be accused of "scaremongering", no one will be offended and everything will be just fine.

Here - I'll start:

April 22, 2005

under
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1466032,00.html

on the are as the of

In the of its on the each of from the to the in the

the of and the of the the in the

a with the the by from than the with than

that the of to with the the of the..... (continued)

Boomer Chick

04-24-2005, 07:50 PM

It is imperative that the "Paul Reveres" and "town criers" speak only truth and facts. If not, they will do far more damage to their cause than the "moderates" and "watchers". We all know what "crying wolf" accomplishes.

Oh! It's you, Yaak. Hmmm, what are YOU doing here? And what damage might that be? Please,
be specific and attempt to articulate your thoughts. EXACTLY, what could be the "damages" to the cause or to anything or anyone else???? Do you have an inkling of an idea?

I choose C.

C. "Carry a big stick, and speak softly." Fund that big stick, but use it for defense ONLY.
Provide leadership and guidance, and, maybe, incentives, but no funding for "alternative energy R & D". Let the free market place drive the research and development of alternate forms of energy.

You been drinking some silly water tonight, Yaaky baby? So you prefer incentives, tax breaks, but no taxpayer funds diverted from warfare and defense into the REAL defense, R & D? And what great harm would funding for alternative R & D do to our national interests, pray tell, what HARM, my dear friend, would come of increased national concentration on getting off the oil tit? Please articulate thoroughly.

Thank you, Yaaky. BTW, have you noticed no one speaks softly anymore?? The only way to get heard, to get bills passed, to get anyone's attention in power positions or even in boardrooms, is to 'splain the facts, and if the facts ain't pretty.............. it ain't my fault !

GROW UP, my big Yaaky baby!!!!

BC

Yaak

04-24-2005, 08:23 PM

Oh! It's you, Yaak. Hmmm, what are YOU doing here? I just dropped by to see how things were going in Imaginationville, Never Never Land, Unreality, or whatever you call it, now that Herr Halva has been neutered.

BTW, have you noticed no one speaks softly anymore??No, but I have noticed that you have a multitude of on-line personalities.

Boomer Chick

04-24-2005, 09:04 PM

I just dropped by to see how things were going in Imaginationville, Never Never Land, Unreality, or whatever you call it, now that Herr Halva has been neutered.

No, but I have noticed that you have a multitude of on-line personalities.

What, because I'm in a different mood tonight ? Don't be offended, Yaak, it's just me being more edgy and demanding! Have you ever been married? Well, we girls aren't always in the same mood and I'm just asking for some thinking here!

How are you, anyway? Sorry I wasn't all huggy wuggy ! It is good seeing you, but I was disappointed you left in the first place.... can you imagine that? :D :shock:

Yaak

04-24-2005, 09:59 PM

Have you ever been married? Well, we girls aren't always in the same mood and I'm just asking for some thinking here!
I have been married twice, so far. Are you proposing? (just kidding)

I am very concerned about air pollution, particularly coal smoke and to a lesser extent Diesel exhaust, because I am witnessing a cause and effect. Every time the winds blow out of the southeast, we here in The Big Bend area are smothered in coal smoke from Mexico, and many of the elderly people have a difficult time breathing. On occasion, one of them is rushed off to the hospital because of the effects of the smoke on them. I am aware of the damage Diesel exhaust is causing to the respiratory systems of city dwellers, particularly children and the old folks.

I am NOT very concerned about climate change or global warming, because I do not believe that humans have had much effect on either......yet.

Where we join hands is the health problems I am concerned about and the climate change / global warming problems you speak of have the same causes. When hoaxters claim that the haze is caused by chemtrails or jets are spraying chemtrails to mitigate global warming, my cause and your cause lose credibility and are often dismissed because of their association with kooks and hoaxers.

Boomer Chick

04-25-2005, 10:52 PM

I have been married twice, so far. Are you proposing? (just kidding)

Ya never know! I go through my share of marital hell. ;)

I am very concerned about air pollution, particularly coal smoke and to a lesser extent Diesel exhaust, because I am witnessing a cause and effect. Every time the winds blow out of the southeast, we here in The Big Bend area are smothered in coal smoke from Mexico, and many of the elderly people have a difficult time breathing. On occasion, one of them is rushed off to the hospital because of the effects of the smoke on them. I am aware of the damage Diesel exhaust is causing to the respiratory systems of city dwellers, particularly children and the old folks.

I hear ya!

I am NOT very concerned about climate change or global warming, because I do not believe that humans have had much effect on either......yet.

Whatever. CO2 seems to be affecting the situation the most, according to graphs and charts... blah, blah. Glaciers are melting, the Gulf Stream changing, various creatures responding to temperature increases in oceans and air, and who knows for sure if humans are contributing? I would rather err on the safe side of the situation than find out a decade from now that we did contribute and it is too late to do anything about it. So many affects have long lifetimes, so while the scientists are studying, it's just wise to control our wastes, conserve energy, and get off fossil fuels... common sense kind of stuff.

Where we join hands is the health problems I am concerned about and the climate change / global warming problems you speak of have the same causes. When hoaxters claim that the haze is caused by chemtrails or jets are spraying chemtrails to mitigate global warming, my cause and your cause lose credibility and are often dismissed because of their association with kooks and hoaxers.

I agree with you. But I still hold and value the freedom for the chemmies to research to their heart's content. If WMM comes up with something new, we should give him a fair hearing and see what he comes up with. Trying to destroy his character is really not necessary. His information will either stand on its own credibility or it won't. I don't care how people were in the past, we're all allowed to change and grow, no matter how "old" we are.

No one here has claimed that chemtrailing or contrails has created global warming. In fact, even the IPCC shows that contrails only add a very small percentage of radiative forcing (tropospheric heat retention) and only over landmasses. This doesn't explain the global situation, especially in the northern latitudes and the Arctic. We've done a lot of legitimate research here.

Thanks for your thoughts, Yaaky! ;)

Boomer Chick

04-25-2005, 10:57 PM

Editorial: Let Logic Rule the Global Warming Debate:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-04-24-global-warming-edit_x.htm

Boomer Chick

04-25-2005, 11:10 PM

NOAA Global Warming facts:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

jayreynolds

04-26-2005, 04:10 AM

NOAA Global Warming facts:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Wow, not much scaremongering there. The word "consensus" doesn't appear, but lots of wiggle words do.

dewey189

04-26-2005, 04:44 AM

<Wow, not much scaremongering there. >

Reality can be a bit frightening, can't it?

Boomer Chick

04-26-2005, 06:58 PM

JPMorgan Chase´s new environmental policy includes global warming

http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1114530189

April 26 -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. has adopted a comprehensive environmental policy that addresses global warming and deforestation, while encouraging its clients to do the same.
The financial services company’s policy advocates efforts within the company to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourages clients to develop carbon mitigation plans that include measurement and disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions as well as plans to reduce or offset them.

JPMorgan Chase also becomes the first private bank to state a preference for Forest Stewardship Council certification for wood products. The council certifies that forestry companies use sustainable practices.

"A policy of this magnitude illustrates our commitment to preserve and protect the world around us," said Amy Davidsen, director of environmental affairs at JPMorgan Chase.

The banking company´s policy was adopted in cooperation with the Rainforest Action Network, an environmental advocacy group, which applauded the company’s efforts.

"Today, JPMorgan Chase joins a growing community of business leaders who are taking their first steps to address global climate change, forest destruction and human rights violations," said Ilyse Hogue, director of the Global Finance Campaign at the Rainforest Action Network.

The financial services firm has assets of more than $1.1 trillion and operates in more than 50 countries.

View the company’s new environmental policy at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/environment.

***

VERY INTERESTING!

jayreynolds

04-27-2005, 04:19 AM

[
April 26 -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. has adopted a comprehensive environmental policy that addresses global warming and deforestation, while encouraging its clients to do the same.VERY INTERESTING!

Yes, it will be interesting to see how the greens accept this.
http://search.corpwatch.org/search?q=J.P.+Morgan&is=corpwatch.org&x=9&y=8

Boomer Chick

04-27-2005, 11:31 AM

From the JPMorgan Chase site:

B: Climate change policy and commitments

The scientific evidence provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body created by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, concludes that climate change is linked largely to the emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity, from the burning of fossil fuels, and deforestation. While there remains uncertainty regarding the severity of impacts, we believe that it is appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach to climate protection by working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today.

JPMorgan Chase will assume a leadership role in the financial services industry by helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our value chain and internally, as described in Section E. We believe we cannot accomplish significant reductions alone; we need the support of our clients, as well as public policy that establishes certainty for investors and allows significant investments in greenhouse gas mitigation. We will therefore work with our industry, clients and policy makers to establish a policy framework for direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

The following policy is applicable to our Investment Bank and Commercial Bank.

I. Risk management policy

Carbon mitigation

JPMorgan Chase will encourage clients that are large greenhouse gas emitters to develop carbon mitigation plans. The plans will include measurement and disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and descriptions of plans to reduce or offset emissions. We will add carbon disclosure and mitigation to our client review process beginning by year end 2005.

In project transactions in the power sector, we will quantify the financial cost of greenhouse gas emissions and integrate them into financial analysis of the transaction. Internalizing the cost of carbon in this way may alter investment choices, and we will encourage clients to evaluate alternative energy technologies. We will develop these new models by end of year 2005.

II. Supporting commitments

a. Advancing the public discourse

JPMorgan Chase will arrange meetings with other financial institutions to advocate for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. We will work with these peers, the electric utility industry, climate policy experts in NGOs and academia, states, and the US government. This dialogue will focus on specific projects to alter the emission trajectory of the US economy. The projects will include:

A policy dialogue to advocate that the US government adopt a market-based national policy on greenhouse gas emissions, which includes all sources of emissions and is fair. Options include either a cap-and-trade or tax policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost. This process will commence by end of year 2005.
Seek to form a coalition to explore financing the greenhouse gas mitigation of coal-fired generating capacity. We expect this coalition to commence by early 2006.
b. Products and research to address climate change

Carbon reduction

We will work with clients to develop favorable financing solutions to fund development of relatively lower carbon emitting technology solutions and investments in greenhouse gas reduction. These solutions will be created by mid 2006.

Research

JPMorgan Chase will use its leadership position in corporate research to explore the business risks associated with climate change and opportunities for greenhouse gas reductions. Our corporate research will explore the potential financial liabilities of carbon emissions to large direct emitters. We will re-examine valuations in the oil, gas, power and transport sectors in light of the operating constraints posed by limits on carbon emissions, and the emergence of alternative clean technology. Conclusions of our research should encourage disclosure, mitigation and new business development of affected companies. In specific sectors, we will also explore the possibility of having our JPM analysts incorporate climate risk into their regular research. We will do this by end of year 2005.

We will research the financial implications of higher costs of carbon emissions to the electric power industry. Particularly for coal-fired electricity generation, investment choices could be materially influenced by carbon-constrained future scenarios.

Carbon reporting

JPMorgan Chase will annually report the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from our power sector projects beginning in 2006.

Renewable energy investment

As part of its energy practice, our private equity group has invested in renewable energy generation projects and will continue to consider other investments in profitable renewable energy generation and technology.

Energy efficient mortgage

In our mortgage loans products, we will accommodate higher debt to income ratios for homes that are considered energy efficient.

"Green" housing

We will continue to seek investments in low-income "green" housing that conserves energy and natural resources, promotes health, and provides easy access to jobs, schools, and services.

***

This is only one page of many! I'm pleased with this development! It also proves what I've been saying all along, that alternative energy development and greenhouse gas reductions will prove economically profitable and smart businesses will indeed trend this way.

Thanks, Jay, I'm sure CorpWatch will feature this investment company as well or not due to their improved stewardship attitude. Read that first article on the Edison Project schools in San Francisco.... very interesting but nothing to do with this topic, except that JPMorgan Chase is one of the investors of this private school chain. We have one of their schools in our city, too.

I love all the positive aspects of our present civilization in transition!

BC :D

Boomer Chick

04-27-2005, 12:20 PM

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=147#more-147

ACTIVE LINKS IN ARTICLE

26 Apr 2005
Pollution-Climate Connections

Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Climate modelling Aerosols— group @ 10:16 am
Guest commentary by Loretta Mickley, Harvard University

Every summer over much of the United States, we brace ourselves for heat waves. During these periods, the air turns muggy and usually smoggy. After a few days, a cold front moves in, sweeping away the pollution and ending the heat. Given that we are on a path towards global warming, atmospheric chemists are asking how climate change could affect air quality. Will warmer temperatures mean more pollution during these episodes? Will episodes last longer? Most importantly, what effect will changes in air quality have on human health?

Recently the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) released Heat Advisory, a report warning that surface air quality could suffer greatly as a result of climate change. In response, a group called the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), together with another group called United for Jobs, published Air Quality False Alarm, a detailed criticism of the NRDC forecast. PRI argues, among other things, that anthropogenic emissions in the U.S. will drop sharply in coming decades. In their view, air pollution will become a thing of the past, no matter what happens to climate.

What’s the story here? First, a little background on ozone and particulate matter (PM), two major components of smog. Surface ozone is formed from a mix of natural and anthropogenic precursors like nitrogen oxides and volatile organic carbon. We have measurements of surface ozone dating back to the late 1800s which imply that ozone in some regions has increased 2-5 times due to emissions of ozone precursors from cars, industry, and power plants. As for PM, there are many different kinds – e.g., organic carbon, soot, and sulfate-ammonium-nitrate. Some kinds of PM, like soot, are directly emitted into the air, but other kinds condense from gas-phase molecules. Like ozone, PM has both natural and anthropogenic ingredients.

Many factors govern the severity and timing of pollution episodes. An obvious factor is the magnitude of precursor emissions. But there are meteorological factors, like how stagnant the surface air is and whether it’s clear or cloudy, warm or cool. The summer of 1998, for example, saw a record number of ozone exceedances averaged over New England. That summer was also the warmest on record for that region. The hot summer that Europe endured in 2003 was also a summer of high pollution levels for that continent. But the cool summer in the U.S. that same year meant that the we saw low levels of pollution.

So how will pollution evolve over the coming decades as climate changes? The easy answer is: oh, the warmer temperatures mean greater pollution! But it’s more complicated than that. Then there are other meteorological factors to consider. As the surface temperatures rise, will the depth of the boundary layer increase, diluting the pollutants within it? Maybe stronger surface winds will carry all the pollution away. What about changes in cloud cover or rainfall?

To tackle issues of this complexity, modelers often turn to sensitivity studies. A sensitivity study is one in which you change just one or two variables, and keep everything else constant. By taking the problem apart in this way, you can isolate the effect of one or two factors at a time.

In one sensitivity study, Aw and Kleeman [2003] imposed a 5ºC increase in temperature over the Los Angeles basin, but kept all other meteorological variables (like windspeed) constant in their model. Ozone in the region increased by 10-15%, but concentrations of sulfate-ammonia-nitrate PM decreased by 10-15%. That’s because ammonia condenses less readily at high temperatures. This is an interesting result. But in the real world, stalled high pressure systems, like the one over the Midwest and Northeast last week (April 18-20), can lead to both warm temperatures and high PM. With clear skies and weak winds, PM can accumulate over the source regions. As the climate changes, not only could temperatures change, but also the behavior of these high pressure systems.

In my research group, we tried a different sensitivity study [Mickley et al., 2004]. We devised our model experiment to test just the effect of changing wind patterns on pollutant concentrations. What we found was that the severity summertime regional pollution episodes in the Midwest and Northeast U.S. increased significantly by 2050, relative to present. Also, the average length of an episode increased from 2 to 3-4 days. Why did this happen? Our model forecast a 20% decline in the frequency of cold fronts sweeping into the U.S., so stagnation events in the model persisted longer. That allowed both gas-phase and PM pollution to build to higher concentrations.

Another model study [Hogrefe et al., 2004] focused on the effect of climate change on just surface ozone. The authors found that even with emissions of ozone precursors in the model held at 1990s levels, the total number of “exceedance days” increased by about 60% over the eastern U.S. (An exceedance day is a day in which ozone averaged over 8 hours exceeds the EPA threshold of 84 ppb.) Because of the complexity of the study, Hogrefe et al. [2004] could not diagnose precisely all the meteorological changes (temperature? circulation patterns?) contributing to the increased surface ozone in their model. But they did find that one factor accounting for about half the increase was enhanced emissions of natural ozone precursors, which are temperature-sensitive.

One of the biggest unknowns, of course, is how anthropogenic emissions will evolve in the future. The Clean Air Act has led to tremendous improvements in air quality since the 1970s. But even if our emissions do decline, the consequences for air pollution are uncertain. Fiore et al. [2002] have shown that decreases in U.S. emissions may be offset by increases elsewhere in the world. Specifically, rising methane emissions elsewhere in the world could significantly enhance background levels of ozone over the U.S., leading to as much pollution in 2030 as we saw in the mid-1990s.

So there’s a lot more to be learned about the links between climate and pollution. Since both surface ozone and PM have adverse effects on human health, understanding the link is important.

References:

Aw, J., and M.J. Kleeman, Evaluating the first-order effect of intraannual air pollution on urban air pollution, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4365, 10.1029/2002JD002688, 2003.

Fiore, A.M., D.J. Jacob, B.D. Field, D.G. Streets, S.D. Fernandes, and C. Jang, Linking ozone pollution and climate change: The case for controlling methane, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1919, doi:10.1029/2002GL015601, 2002.

Hogrefe, C., B. Lynn, K. Civerolo, J.-Y. Ku, J. Rosenthal, C. Rosenzweig, S. Gaffin, K. Knowlton, and P.L. Kinney, Simulating changes in regional air pollution over the eastern United States due to changes in global and regional climate and emissions. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D22301, doi:10.1029/2004JD004690, 2004.

Mickley, L. J., D. J. Jacob, B. D. Field, and D. Rind, Effects of future climate change on regional air pollution episodes in the United States, Geophys. Res. Let., 30, L24103, doi:10.1029/2004GL021216, 2004.

***

Very insightful piece! You can respond over at Realclimate.org is you wish to! With so many researching climate and weather patterns and pollution and how it all relates, we'll be discovering some very essential pieces of the total climate/pollution puzzle and be better equipped to solve problems.

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

04-27-2005, 08:56 PM

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/042705EA.shtml

Ozone Layer Most Fragile on Record
By Paul Brown
The Guardian UK

Wednesday 27 April 2005

Fears over increase in skin cancer as scientists report that climate change continues to destroy the earth's protection.
The protective ozone layer over the Arctic has thinned this winter to the lowest levels since records began, alarming scientists who believed it had begun to heal.

The increased loss of ozone allows more harmful ultraviolet light to reach the earth's surface, making children and outdoor enthusiasts such as skiers more vulnerable to skin cancer - a disease which is already dramatically increasing.

Scientists yesterday reinforced the warning that people going out in the sun this summer should protect themselves with creams and hats.

Research by Cambridge University shows that it is not increased pollution but a side effect of climate change that is making ozone depletion worse. At high altitudes, 50% of the protective layer had been destroyed.

The research has dashed hopes that the ozone layer was on the mend. Since the winter of 1999-2000, when depletion was almost as bad, scientists had believed an improvement was under way as pollution was reduced. But they now believe it could be another 50 years before the problem is solved.

What appears to have caused the further loss of ozone is the increasing number of stratospheric clouds in the winter, 15 miles above the earth. These clouds, in the middle of the ozone layer, provide a platform which makes it easier for rapid chemical reactions which destroy ozone to take place. This year, for three months from the end of November, there were more clouds for longer periods than ever previously recorded.

Cambridge University scientists said yesterday that, in late March, when ozone depletion was at its worst, Arctic air masses drifted over the UK and the rest of Europe as far south as northern Italy, giving significantly higher doses of ultraviolet radiation and sunburn risk.

The results, which were announced at a Geophysical Union meeting in Vienna yesterday, are part of a European venture coordinated by Cambridge University's chemistry department, which has been studying the relationship between the ozone layer and climate change since May 2004.

Yesterday, Professor John Pyle, from the university, said: "These were were the lowest levels of ozone recorded since measurements began 40 years ago. We thought things would start to get better because of the phasing out of CFCs and other chemicals because of the Montreal protocol, but this has not happened.

"The pollution levels have leveled off but changes in the atmosphere have made it easier for the chemical reactions to take place that allow pollutants to destroy ozone. With these changes likely to continue and get worse as global warming increases, then ozone will be further depleted even if the level of pollution is going down."

The relationship between the depletion of the ozone layer and climate change is so complex that the EU is investing £11m in a five-year project to try to understand and predict what is happening. Reporting the results of the first year, the scientists told the meeting in Vienna yesterday that "the atmospheric lifetime of these [ozone depleting] compounds is extremely long and the concentrations will remain at dangerously high levels for another half century."

Increased greenhouse gases in the air trap more heat in the lower atmosphere, but the stratosphere far above the earth is getting colder. As a result, ice clouds form between 14 and 26 kilometres above the earth, exactly in the region where the protective ozone is found.

The European scientists reported the first signs of ozone loss in January. As sunlight returned to northern latitudes, the rate of ozone depletion increased and rapid destruction of ozone occurred throughout February and March. In the altitude range where the ozone layer usually reaches its maximum concentration, more than half of the ozone was lost. In the lower atmosphere losses were not so great.

"Overall, about 30% of the ozone layer was destroyed," said Dr Markus Rex, from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Potsdam, Germany, another member of the team. He said the cold conditions which created polar stratospheric clouds were four times more extensive in 2005 than in the 1960s and 70s.

Professor Pyle said overall the mixing of the air in the northern hemisphere was far more rapid than in the Antarctic so a "hole" in the ozone layer did not occur. Instead, as the air mixed in spring, there was a general thinning of the protective ozone over the whole of the northern hemisphere.

"It just means we have less natural protection than we should have and we are used to. It means that we should be careful about exposing ourselves to the sun, but that is already the case, this just makes things slightly worse," he said.

The UV Danger: Ecology Altered as Earth Burns

The thinning of the ozone layer allows more ultraviolet light - or UV radiation - to reach the Earth's surface.

UV light stimulates the production of vitamin D in the skin, which strengthens bones, but it also burns and causes skin cancer, particularly in fair-skinned people. The UN environment programme estimates that for every 1% thinning of the ozone layer there is a 2% to 3% rise in skin cancer.

It also causes eye problems even if dark glasses are worn - mainly cataracts and snow blindness -and can suppress the immune response to the herpes virus and damage the spleen.

Excess UV radiation cuts photosynthesis in plants, reducing the size and yield of winter wheat.

Plankton which are constantly exposed suffer damaged DNA. As some species are more vulnerable than others, an increase in UV exposure has the potential to cause a shift in species composition and reduce diversity in ecosystems.

Reducing the world's populations of phytoplankton would significantly impact the world's carbon cycle, because phytoplankton store huge amounts of carbon in the ocean.
-------

:eek:

jayreynolds

04-28-2005, 04:20 AM

No Arctic Ozone Hole, Says Odin

Odin
Kiruna, Sweden (SPX) Mar 21, 2005
Data from the Swedish Odin satellite indicate that no arctic ozone hole will appear this winter, despite fears to that effect.
This winter the stratosphere in the Arctic region has been unusually cold, says Donal Murtagh, professor of Global Environmental Measurements at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, and responsible for atmospheric science research on Odin.

The low temperature created large amounts of zone-destroying chlorine compounds in the stratosphere at the end of January, which indicated a risk of the appearance of an "ozone hole".

"We had to speed up Odin data reduction to be able to predict whether or not an ozone hole is imminent. For this to occur, low temperatures must prevail into March and the polar circulation vortex must be stable, said Murtagh.

"But the temperature in the stratosphere is increasing, which releases nitrogen compounds from ice clouds over the pole. The nitrogen reacts with chlorine and thus prevents the chlorine from destroying the ozone.

"Only renewed cooling of the stratosphere could change the situation, but it is hard to see how this could happen," says professor Murtagh.

Since its launch in 2001 Odin has collected a vast amount of data about processes in the atmosphere relevant to the ozone layer and the Earth's climate. But Odin can also cast its microwave eye into space.

Therefore its resources are divided equally between atmospheric scientist and astronomers. In addition to Sweden, France, Canada and Finland take part in the Odin project.

The Swedish National Space Board recently decided to continue funding a fifth year of operations. Odin has been designed and developed by the Swedish Space Corporation and is operated by the company's ground station and control centre facilities.

Odin Works Fine After Major Adjustments
Kiruna, Sweden (SPX) Mar 21, 2005 The space observatory Odin has been orbiting Earth for more than four years now. Last week, to enable Odin's attitude control system to make correct calculations for another two years, the operators had to reduce its time reference - an absolutely essential parameter.

These measures, which are the most extensive adjustments made since the satellite was launched, are necessary for the continued operations, and caused the Odin team some tension before they could finally verify that the operations had worked. Odin is still pointing its telescope with perfect precision.
http://www.terradaily.com/news/ozone-05d.html
Related Links

jayreynolds

04-28-2005, 05:36 AM

Besides the Swedish data, which says no Arctic Ozone hole appeared, recall a previous discussion on the "mother earth" thread, in which natural causes, namely solar storms, were blamed for some ozone loss last winter:

"Last winter, Arctic ozone declined more precipitously than ever in the upper atmosphere, probably because of violent storms on the sun's surface, one team
reports today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Randall and her colleagues studied a dramatic and unexpected drop in upper-level ozone levels last winter. A few months before the decline, massive solar storms had blasted high-energy particles toward Earth. Randall suspects the energetic particles helped create chemicals called nitrogen oxides, which are
known ozone-gobblers. Solar storms are natural, she said, but some scientists suspect humans also played a role in creating conditions that contributed to the historic ozone-
depletion event."

Now, consider the fact that despite what the Guardian's scaremonger article claimed, "These were were the lowest levels of ozone recorded since measurements began 40 years ago."

NO OZONE HOLE OCCURRED!

jayreynolds

04-28-2005, 11:01 AM

The British have a running report on ozone which includes some interesting comments about the 2004 solar-induced arctic ozone loss:

"Reports of a substantial Arctic ozone hole forming in response to a solar proton event in the spring of 2004 are somewhat exaggerated. Although this did lead to substantial depletion of up to 60% near the top of the ozone layer, less than 10% of the total ozone column is in this region. The event therefore had less effect than normal day to day changes and no ozone hole was formed. The spring of 2005 by contrast had much lower stratospheric temperatures and significant chemical ozone depletion did take place. Although the column ozone never quite dropped to "ozone hole" levels, the amount of ozone affected by chemical depletion is broadly comparable to that seen in the Antarctic ozone hole."
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/

Boomer Chick

04-28-2005, 12:33 PM

Besides the Swedish data, which says no Arctic Ozone hole appeared, recall a previous discussion on the "mother earth" thread, in which natural causes, namely solar storms, were blamed for some ozone loss last winter:

Now, consider the fact that despite what the Guardian's scaremonger article claimed, "These were were the lowest levels of ozone recorded since measurements began 40 years ago."

NO OZONE HOLE OCCURRED!

Jay, the article about Odin didn't say that "no Arctic Ozone hole appeared".... it said "no arctic ozone hole will appear this winter, despite fears to that effect."

There's a difference. One refers to the past the other projects into the future. The article confirmed that thinning had occurred in the ozone layer, but it wasn't a hole.

Odin article:

"The low temperature created large amounts of ozone-destroying chlorine compounds in the stratosphere at the end of January, which indicated a risk of the appearance of an "ozone hole"."

The Odin article actually supported the information in the UK article above.

NOPE..... I knew you would read it as scaremongering..... but it wasn't.

UK article:

"Professor Pyle said overall the mixing of the air in the northern hemisphere was far more rapid than in the Antarctic so a "hole" in the ozone layer did not occur. Instead, as the air mixed in spring, there was a general thinning of the protective ozone over the whole of the northern hemisphere. "

Never said there was a hole created. Just a thinning. It'll probably be thickened during the summer months if pollution doesn't get too out of hand. Just my take, not scientific by any means.

BC ;)

whitemajikman

04-30-2005, 04:39 PM

.....

whitemajikman

04-30-2005, 04:42 PM

......

whitemajikman

04-30-2005, 04:45 PM

....

whitemajikman

04-30-2005, 06:56 PM

......

jayreynolds

05-01-2005, 07:08 AM

Hey, whitey, I spent nearly 1/4 of my life living in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. The UV index is almost always around 10-11, at times it ranges up to 14.
For example, here is the current 10 day forecast:
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/IntlLocalStd.asp?loc=tisx&seg=LocalWeather&prodgrp=Forecast&product=Forecast&prodnav=none

Here is the current Canadian forecast:
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/uvindex/forecasts/forecastmap_e.html

Here is the hourly forecast and actual reading for Edmonton:
http://es-ee.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/uv_plots.htm

I see that this time of the morning you have a pitiful UVI of 2.

Here is Canada's UVI forecast for the Caribbean:
http://www.cmc.ec.gc.ca/cmc/data/fpca36.html

This is why you palefaced Canadians spend big bucks to head south for some healthy sunshine!

BTW, of course the UVI would be 5 times stronger in the tropics. You Canadians really have no reason to fear the sun. We dealt with it quite well, and became bronzed like greek gods, but most sun-starved grim-faced Canadians who came down for a week or two were gluttons and foolishly got themselves burned lying like beached Belugas in the sun, then wised up and spent the rest of their vacation sipping pina coladas under the palms like normal people.

There's really no need for scaremongering about UV in Canada, you get so little, you could probably use a little boost!

Boomer Chick

05-01-2005, 07:40 AM

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THINNING OF THE OZONE LAYER, Jay?

You know, I spent a lot of time on this Climate Change thread and it seems both of you guys ignore what I post, what I write, and simply carry on your posting and responding as though what I post isn't even here.

I first posted the ozone depletion on this thread, Jay misread the article totally and twisted it as though Pyle was announcing a "hole" -- tried to offer refuting material -- but actually the material supported the ozone depletion. Then WMM posts as though I hadn't already argued the case to Jay and even reposts the UK article Pyle and all !!!!

What's the point of my being here if no one responds or gives credit for what I post? What a waste of my time! Why don't you two just continue this whole science thread yourselves and argue without anyone else here, OK?

We in the Front Range of Colorado live at high altitudes -- 6,000 plus feet and our home at 7,100 -- on a plateau extending out from the Rockies into the plains -- so we have dealt with UV rays probably more intense than either of you experience and there's no epidemic of skin cancer here, but people are careful and have had to be for as long as I can remember.

It seems to me the theory of spraying regarding UV rays was often given SHORT SHRIFT by Chemtrail enthusiasts as a COVER STORY for the REAL reasons for spraying.

I must bring up another point, too. If this Ozone THINNING is RECENT, what is the explanation of the spraying for so many years PREVIOUS? In other words, if no one perceived the trend or foresaw the trend ........... why would they SPRAY to mitigate UV ? NOW that they measure OZONE depletion, it would make sense. But it doesn't make sense in regard to the PAST.

I am still curious and open, however.

Expect fewer posts from me.

whitemajikman

05-01-2005, 08:53 AM

[

whitemajikman

05-01-2005, 10:18 AM

jayreynolds

05-01-2005, 11:38 AM

It seems to me the theory of spraying regarding UV rays was often given SHORT SHRIFT by Chemtrail enthusiasts as a COVER STORY for the REAL reasons for spraying.
I must bring up another point, too. If this Ozone THINNING is RECENT, what is the explanation of the spraying for so many years PREVIOUS? In other words, if no one perceived the trend or foresaw the trend ........... why would they SPRAY to mitigate UV ? NOW that they measure OZONE depletion, it would make sense. But it doesn't make sense in regard to the PAST.
Expect fewer posts from me.

Don't sweat it. Whitey was just having an 'episode', and he's deleting his posts pretty quickly now.
He does this occasionally, perhaps cyclothymic.

foot_soldier

05-01-2005, 12:08 PM

Boomer Chick

05-01-2005, 01:35 PM

Let's let Jay Reynolds have the floor here - permanently. Most of the old-timers walked away from "debating" with him years ago and have moved on. Reynolds isn't interested in "debate" anyway. His purpose on the few forums where he's still allowed to post is limited to eviscerating the contributions (not to mention the reputations) of anyone who doesn't buy into his version of "reality." BC, if you don't get it by now, oh well. No one can blame you for trying to reason with this entity. After all, you're a very thorough researcher and have not only posted excellent reference material but have taken a great deal of time to explain much of it in layperson's language. You haven't wasted your time - in fact you've reached a lot of people and you should feel good about that.

Here's Reynolds' World as depicted on one of his own websites:

Powerful, eh?

And on his other web site is a carefully-selected image of a "Greek god" type carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. The caption reads: "This is Jay Reynolds' World. It is the real state of things that agrees with facts and reality." How profoundly moving. No indication of self-absorption there, eh? Nothing distorted about this guy's opinion of his importance in the scheme of things. Hell no.

I'm sorry you've deleted the recent references re: ozone depletion, WMM. I was still in the process of reading through one in particular that you posted two days ago. By the way, it's common knowledge that Canada has among the most comprehensive of ozone depletion databases in the world. "Environment Canada" is a superior resource overall. Reynolds' patronizing commentary, so charmingly expressed earlier today, is out of line. To say the least.

As for the following:

Yes, I noticed that even before you replied to his knee-jerk reactionary twisting of that piece - and just threw my hands up. HELLO. Had enough??

Anyway, let him have the floor. There are other venues through which to work. Think of this one as Boot Camp. It's over. Time to move on to more productive activity. Reynolds will keep going for another ten years doing what he does best - manipulating, insulting and humiliating people. There will always be a venue that will let him freely exercise his "right" to do this. After all, this is AMURICA.

Yeah, you're right about what you say. It's frustrating to say the least and Jay, you seem to vasillate as well as to your intellectual acumen here. Sometimes you make sense and other times you totally misread and totally twist things into fantasy. It's not WMM, it's you, too as far as your twisting the ozone story. WMM had to repeat posts for emphasis and that's not as bad, but frustrating nonetheless. I'm not angry just frustrated.

FS, I don't know if I'll leave totally, but given this science forum doesn't attract readers at all, what's the point? We'd be better off posting up in the current events section to get people to read. Some people up there have started threads having to do with gas, climate, and peak oil, so.... maybe if we care about educating the public on this particular forum, we should start threads in the current events. Otherwise, what other forums do you recommend?

Who was it that expressed, I think it was Friedman, when the gas prices go up to a certain price.... everyone will get onboard the alternative energy bandwagon... BIG TIME! ? Yes, he has appeared on Charlie Rose and Tim Russert's show lately and his latest book :

The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century,

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374292884/103-6195635-7028655?v=glance

is HOT !!! He's HOT !!!! I like everything he has to say and he says it with conviction, emotion, and quite an abundance of knowledge. Watch this guy!

Thomas L. Friedman's reporter's curiosity and his ability to recognize the patterns behind the most complex global developments have made him one of the most entertaining and authoritative sources for information about the wider world we live in, both as the foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times and as the author of landmark books like From Beirut to Jerusalem and The Lexus and the Olive Tree. They also make him an endlessly fascinating conversation partner, and we'd happily have peppered him with questions about The World Is Flat for hours. Read our interview to learn why there's almost no one from Washington, D.C., listed in the index of a book about the global economy, and what his one-plank platform for president would be. (Hint: his bumper stickers would say, "Can You Hear Me Now?")

Got off on a tangent, but somehow it relates to everything we're going through at this transitional time.

WMM! Don't be offended! I'm not your enemy and said I was open, didn't I ? I just don't appreciate repeated articles, that's all...... and I can argue and spar with Jay, as well as you!

Please repost all unrepeated information? THANKS!!!

Don't be angry at me .... I was only expressing frustration! :(

Thanks, FS! I hear you and have wanted to simply avoid judgments not based on anything but what's on this board and I've expressed myself and I just don't know if staying on this hardly-read forum is worth it. We need more exposure! Please advise!

BC

foot_soldier

05-01-2005, 04:40 PM

Re: other venues:

There are some very savvy and well-informed people up in the "Current Events" section here. I've followed all the environmental and energy threads and found "Reality_Check" and "hooligan" in particular to be very articulate in the climate change department. So that would be a good place to continue posting in my opinion.

I think there are more "readers" in the Science forum than you might think. A lot of people are interested in information but don't want to get involved in interpersonal dynamics. A lot of people truly don't have that kind of time if you know what I mean.

Here's another possibility:

Earth Talk @ The Eco Portal (Climate Ark's Discussion Forum)
http://www.environmentalsustainability.info/talk/index.php?sid=dbda70ea32a691f16895d5e7d1aa931d

This forum venue is actively moderated and the owner has chosen to keep it on the level of a working venue for discussion of climate-related issues and possible solutions. Troublemakers and Professional Contrarians are not given an open-ended platform here on which to exercise their disruptive impulses at everyone else's expense. This is a focused group - in fact there's at least one person from Colorado who has been participating since January 2004.

See what you think...

jayreynolds

05-01-2005, 08:47 PM

Here's Reynolds' World as depicted on one of his own websites:[/color]

Powerful, eh?

And on his other web site is a carefully-selected image of a "Greek god" type carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. The caption reads: "This is Jay Reynolds' World. It is the real state of things that agrees with facts and reality." How profoundly moving. No indication of self-absorption there, eh? Nothing distorted about this guy's opinion of his importance in the scheme of things. Hell no.

He-he. Glad you like my images well enough. I spent a good deal of time finding and selecting images for my website(s). The Labyrinth was for my feature article about your buddy Clifford Carnicom, FS, and describes the maze of governmental bureaucacy I had to navigate getting him a response from the EPA, took about a year, and it was ME who got it done, while all YOU ever did was talk about it. Well, you and Carnicom broke up after he insisted on publishing BS from anonymous crapsters, and for once you had the guts to call him out on it. Congratulations on THAT one.

The "Greek God" image is, of course, Atlas.
http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/aboutjay.html
Atlas, as you may know, fought against the gods of Olympus on the side of the Titans, who opposed their rise to power. I like mythology, and do in fact see myself as often being in opposition to those seeking power. Unlike Atlas, no zeus has made me carry the burden of the heavens, as Zeus did to Atlas, nor have I been turned to stone, as eventually befell him.

When I was creating the webpage, I originally had a much different version of Atlas, but my wife said she liked this one better. Only after it was online for quite awhile diod she finally point out to me the reason. 'I like the way it looks like you've "dropped the ball" a few times and left lots of bits and pieces lying around, just like you always do......"

Sincerely, I hope you all realize that when I started debunking the chemtrail hoax, I was all alone, pretty much everybody else was against me, and I went up against dozens of chemmies by myself, and made it through to see them finished. to an extent, I did have to create a 'myth' of invincibility and strength. It probably worked because many, including 'footsoldier', came to believe and stated many times that I must actually be a team of different people working in concert as one persona. In a way. also, it gave me a reputation which I had to uphold, an idealized goal, a benchmark which I had to always clear.

Most of you would walk straight by me on the street and not know it.

Who knows, that guy that looked at you sort of funny that time, who acted like maybe he knew you??

Maybe that was me!

Look, if you guys can't hack it here, or just aren't getting the converts you wanted, maybe you should consider why you came here in the first place, why you left where you were before, and where you are going next. Personally, I came here to debate Wayne, and it looks like I outlasted him, and the others. 'Foosoldier' came tagging along after Wayne, but decided to stay and get the lessons I gave her about being honest, lessons she has heard before, but evidently
wanted to hear again. BC, you came a chemmie and left the wiser. Congratulations to you!

To Whitemajickman, get some help with that mind of yours, start by cancelling your Internet. You need far too much reality to be messing around in this fantasy web where it's too easy to get carried away. Either you're not a good enough liar, you just have too big of a mouth, or maybe have a defective short term memory that leaves you wide open.

BTW, the real master image for "Jay Reynold's World" is "Die Zivilisation", by a German artist:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/index1.html

halva

05-01-2005, 09:28 PM

I'm not angry just frustrated.
BC

Do you really think you did the right thing trying to get the moderators here to solve our problems, BC? Especially after you had achieved your objective of removing Insurrection Chemistry?

After all, you know the score better than they do. There are no other leaders. We have to be the leaders.

magistre

05-01-2005, 10:35 PM

Which just goes to show that the govenment is CORRUPTED, ABSOLUTELY!

Boomer Chick

05-02-2005, 11:31 AM

Do you really think you did the right thing trying to get the moderators here to solve our problems, BC? Especially after you had achieved your objective of removing Insurrection Chemistry?

After all, you know the score better than they do. There are no other leaders. We have to be the leaders.

Are you trying to blame IS's temporary banning on me? And related to that, possibly yours? HA! That is hilarious! You know darn well that IS's behavior was out of line and so was yours. Besides, he wasn't banned forever and can come back anytime he likes. YOUR behavior got you in trouble with the mods, so just accept it and learn from it.

Why I'm glad to see you back, I have no idea. But if you contribute without trying to blame others, including Jay, you might just re-capture your crediblity and self esteem and contribute for the edification of readers. Only you can do it because only YOU created the situation.

As far as IS, he can come back anytime. He was given a two-week banning and no one said he couldn't return. Do you miss him, Halva? Why don't you e-mail with him? Is that not good enough for you?

It'll be interesting to see what you post from here on out. Welcome back!

Jay, you know I like your art on your sight and I find no joy in criticizing and trying to find fault in your symbolisms. You are free and always were to debunk anything on the net you so desired. As long as you do not humiliate, threaten, or otherwise personally castigate those who seem to you as "lost" or "under the spell of ignorance" or "believers in false concepts" --- WHATEVER -- I have no problem with it as long as you maintain your civility and respect for others. Simply asking questions over and over again with red letters doesn't mean squat in that regard. It's tiring for the focus of that kind of posting, but my God, BFD ! Sorry, it just seems so many take the internet as though it's some kind of battleground when it need not be and really isn't. The battleground of ideas and debate are actually the underlying premise of democracy so if someone disagrees, someone claims a false deed upon another, why just respond with the truth and move on to other topics. Ignoring works well, too. FS, you may realize and KNOW that Jay holds thoughts about you that may not be true ...... so? Jay, you might now and then be off track as well.... you're only human and your abilities to make connections aren't always perfect ....... so, let's just all mellow out a bit and realize that the Peak Oil situation and the changing climate for whatever reason.... really do take precedence compared to the chemtrail theory. There's too much real life activity going on regarding these parallel conditions with parallel hope in their solutions as well.

I find it an exciting time. Jay, if you would simply respond to my responses, even though you see me as a non-chemmie, I would appreciate it. Remember, I'm still open to investigation of any theory, but we've moved on for the most part into the climate and peak oil area and you for some reason are fighting even that, which blows my mind. Why would you want to fight the science and the transition into alternative energies? Maybe you feel that scaremongering exists in some articles, and that is your choice, but most of the articles posted here, and especially the science articles don't SCARE, they only relate facts and projections into the future. If they seem scary to you, then maybe that's your personal take on them and not what was intended? Besides, if you suspect a certain group of scientists PUSHES a FEAR message, please explain what the PURPOSE of that fear message would be and WHO would GAIN from it. It's similar to the "FOLLOW THE MONEY" investigative thinking process. Just WHY would so many scientists in so many countries RELAY falsehoods????? WHY?

Jay, you simply must get your "thinking cap" ;) on and write your reasoning here. It's gone beyond mere protection of the people regarding chemtrails into............ DENIAL on your part, and you must look at your own thought process and explain it for yourself and us so that you can grow and get a proper footing on the newer realities going on around us...... climate change, peak oil, alternative energy development, clean air, water, and programs, carbon sequestration programs, etc.

To merely say one is CONTRARIAN is not enough.

Peace to all.

WMM --- COME BACK !!!

Boomer Chick

05-02-2005, 10:08 PM

California Water Agency Installs Solar Assets
May 2, 2005

Construction underway for a 355 kW solar PV system at The Desert Water Agency of Palm Springs, California.

Photo: Xantrex Technology

Palm Springs, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Water agencies on the West Coast of the United States are increasingly looking to solar photovoltaic (PV) technology to supply their power needs. The Desert Water Agency of Palm Springs, California recently took the PV plunge with a 355 kW array from Shell Solar.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=aFNP8S-Odica?id=27951

***

Hydrogen Bill Approved by Florida House
May 2, 2005

Tallahasse, Florida [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Despite the lingering challenges and critiques of hydrogen energy technologies, one state, above all others, is moving full speed ahead in an effort to become the dominant hydrogen capitol of all US states.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=27955

***

Solar Education Grows in Florida Schools
May 2, 2005

Brooksville, Florida [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Nine Florida schools so far have added solar energy experience to their curriculum through the SunSmart schools program. SunSmart is a statewide initiative to install 29 solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on schools around the state.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=27950

***

Canada's Solar Industry Calls for Industry Standards
May 2, 2005

Montreal, Canada [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Misinformation can be the downfall of any industry, so a member of the Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) has stepped up to the challenge of keeping that from happening. ICP Solar has assumed a key role in the self-regulation of the solar industry in Canada.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=27948

***

LIPA/FPL Request Offshore Approval for Wind Project
April 29, 2005

Philippe Cousteau might as well have ocean water running through his veins. To have him voice approval for the Long Island Power Authority's offshore wind development proposal is a feather in the cap of the organization.

Photo: LIPA

Long Island, New York [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] The potential for offshore wind energy developments in the United States has revolved around approval for the Cape Wind development off of Nantucket, Massachusetts for a few years now.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=27847

"Today we draw a symbolic line in the sand and say we're tired of being held hostage to OPEC and other foreign oil producers, and we're going to do something positive to develop an alternative energy resource that will heal, not hurt the environment."

- Richard M. Kessel, Chairman Long Island Power Authority

***

Boomer Chick

05-02-2005, 10:50 PM

California Scientists Issue Global Warming Warning
Challenge Governor & Legislature to Take Action

Sacramento, CA—Today, nearly 500 scientists from around the state called on Governor Schwarzenegger and California Legislators to aggressively reduce the state's global warming emissions. Their letter, published in the Sacramento Bee today, warned that climate change threatens California's future and said that the state has a "unique opportunity to play a leadership role."

continued at link:

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-9904.html

***

jayreynolds

05-03-2005, 10:55 AM

London Telegraph-
Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

Radcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset). He disagrees with the pro-global warming line

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.

In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."
========================================
Maybe a job opportunity for Wayne Hall over at "Science"?

Boomer Chick

05-03-2005, 03:09 PM

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html

More Notes on Global Warming

I was puzzled when I read the ex- change of letters on global warming in the January 2005 issue of PHYSICS TODAY (page 13). George Smith suggested that the recent carbon dioxide increase could be the result of a century of global warming—in particular, by the degassing of the ocean. Spencer Weart answered (correctly, but see below) that scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have calculated the budget between the carbon input with the sinks in different reservoirs of the carbon cycle: ocean, forest, soil, and so forth

Besides technicalities implying that the global CO2 budget still has second-order uncertainties, I'm surprised Weart didn't cite first-order proofs demonstrating that the recent CO2 increase cannot be due to ocean warming. Those killing proofs are well-known in the climatology community—for example, in the IPCC—but it is crucial to emphasize them again for a wider audience.

The recent CO2 increase—280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005—is accompanied by three phenomena that completely rule out ocean warming as the main cause:

Parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. Strictly speaking, this is the "Suess effect," first observed, and correctly interpreted, by Hans Suess of the University of California, San Diego, in the early 1950s. The Suess effect occurs because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil—much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.

Nonspecialists will not easily be impressed by model calculations and complex budgets that contain often large uncertainties. Moreover, I have seen dishonest skeptics using "old hat" arguments such as ocean CO2 outgassing to refute the responsibility of human activities in the recent CO2 increase and the forthcoming large global warming.

One crucial note about the global budget of inputs and outputs that Weart should have stated: Known CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation largely exceed (by about a factor of two) what remains in the atmosphere. Hence, if warming were the cause of the CO2 increase, how would we account for the hundreds of gigatons of carbon generated by human activity?

Edouard Bard
(bard@cerege.fr)
Collège de France
Aix-en-Provence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was surprised by Spencer Weart's comments on my previous letter. I had explained that when floating sea ice melts, the sea level would actually go down and not up, as the general public has been led to believe. I further stated that the Vostok and Dome-C ice cores from Antarctica show that the main Antarctic ice mass has not melted in the past 730 000 years. That evidence would seem to remove most of the planet's ice as a possible factor in coastal flooding in the event of global warming.

Instead of addressing those statements, Weart chose to introduce a completely different situation, namely what happens when the ocean's mean temperature rises—something I never mentioned.

Of course, warming the ocean could raise the sea level due to expansion, as evidently happens during El Niño events, but no one suggests that ocean warming could raise ocean levels by tens of meters and flood low-lying areas. Increased evaporation has apparently lowered ocean levels in some warmed areas.

George E. Smith
(gsmith@agilent.com)
Sunnyvale, California

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weart replies: A notable feature of climate science is that most of its issues, unlike most questions in physics, involve evidence and arguments that are scattered among many specialties. People in one specialty are rarely familiar with the details of evidence from another, and the public grasps still less. A letter in this space of a few centimeters must miss a lot, and both letter writers are correct that I failed to go into details of serious concern—for example, I mentioned carbon isotopes only in passing. I thank Edouard Bard for rightly pointing out that the Suess effect was historically the most important demonstration that human activity is rapidly adding CO2 to the atmosphere. His letter offers this and other good ways to answer some questions raised by uninformed people who can grasp physics arguments.

George Smith's concerns are among many issues in the study of sea-level rise, a subject that scientists have discussed for half a century without reaching consensus on all points. Still, nearly all students of the topic have come to agree that the rise in the next couple of centuries will almost certainly be greater than zero, with a significant component due to thermal expansion; the expansion, in fact, is the surest thing in the whole business. Experts have also long agreed, as Smith rightly says, that the main Antarctic ice dome will not play a significant role in the next few centuries. Still under discussion is a possible large component of future sea-level rise caused by the slow collapse of other ice sheets—West Antarctica and Greenland. In the last five years, new field evidence has caused some experts to change their opinion of such a collapse from "highly unlikely, scarcely worth worrying about," to "possible, worth seriously worrying about." (For history and references, see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm, end of page.)

Spencer Weart
(sweart@aip.org)
American Institute of Physics
College Park, Maryland

Boomer Chick

05-03-2005, 03:26 PM

Global Warming: The Smoking Gun? by Dr. Roy Spencer

http://www.techcentralstation.com/050305C.html

Boomer Chick

05-03-2005, 04:06 PM

The Big Business of Climate Change Research

http://www.techcentralstation.com/040105G.html

By Roy Spencer Published 04/01/2005

Dr. Spencer makes some extremely valid points regarding the funding behind environmental legislation and research, especially regarding climate change.

"Which bias is the best bias to be biased with? " he asks.

What he fails to realize also, are the various businesses that benefit from environmental legislation as well. For example: businesses that determine a company's "green quotient" if you will, which determine what products, what waste, what energy conservation standards, what improvements to the company can be made to decrease the company's pollution, increase conservation of energy and products, and generally save the company money through wise changes. Some also offer energy products and retrofitting of energy-saving and pollution-preventing technologies. Some companies offer alternative energy technologies to schools, factories, and all kinds of businesses. Landscapers and nurseries would profit from urban greening projects, not to mention the environmental engineers employed by cities and companies to improve their interior and exterior design with consideration of energy, light, air quality, conservation, etc. Well, these are just a few, not to mention the various car makers, producers of bio-diesel, farmers, insurance companies, etc. etc............ and the lobbyists connected to these businesses do their jobs in Washington to secure the alternative energy upstream and downstream benefits. Overall, the economy itself and the political action accompanying it will move this transition along. This is a good thing.

And yes, since Washington is involved with money and business, of course this climate change and the consequent alternative energy drive will fuel it, too!

DUH! ;)

Boomer Chick

05-10-2005, 12:53 AM

Global Warming Could Bring Cold to Britain:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050508-095615-9856r.htm

Boomer Chick

05-10-2005, 12:55 AM

May 09, 2005
Global Warming Bonds

QuickChanges

When it comes to solving the global warming challenge, a lot of the most innovative solutions are coming from economists. This makes sense as they deal in the science of human incentives. So what is it really going to take to get us to change our behavior?

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002675.html

Boomer Chick

05-10-2005, 12:57 AM

Global warming: a clear and present danger
David King
9 - 5 - 2005

The sceptics are wrong: scientific evidence supports the argument that climate change is a real threat that requires urgent and committed action, says the British government’s chief scientific advisor, David King.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2488.jsp

Boomer Chick

05-14-2005, 09:20 AM

Join the march!

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/page/robert-f-kennedy/

Boomer Chick

05-14-2005, 09:28 AM

A slanderous attack on Inhofe and a realization that climate change is definately happening! Concentrates on the Gulf Stream changes:

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2518

jayreynolds

05-15-2005, 06:41 AM

A slanderous attack on Inhofe and a realization that climate change is definately happening! Concentrates on the Gulf Stream changes:

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2518

I don't find any actual malice in the written statements by your author, in which case the suit would be libel, rather than slander, anyways. Plus public figures aren't usually very protected from either libel or slander.

As far as the article, your guy cites Dr. Wallace Broeker, who coined the term "Atlantic conveyor", yet makes the comment:
"OK, now imagine what would happen if this wide, warm flow of water were to slow down or even stop. Ice ages are made of the kind of temperature drop that would be expected if the Earth lost one of its key circulatory systems. In the 2004 book Feeling the Heat, I reported that this process has continued unabated since the last Ice Age, "but global warming is throwing in a monkey wrench by melting ice in the Arctic Ocean."

Jim Motavalli is being dishonest, because he surely knows that Broeker himself wrote an article years ago in which he took the "hockey stick" guys to task for not showing in their graph the Medieval Optimum temperature rise greater than todays temperature change, which was certainly not of anthropogenic origin. Matavalli also lies when he says that the conveyor " has continued unabated since the last Ice Age."

Simply not true, and the father of the Atlantic Conveyor, Wallace Broeker, proves it:
http://www-geol.unine.ch/cours/geol/ScienceBroecker%20291

jayreynolds

05-15-2005, 07:56 AM

Title: The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change:
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

The German Institute for Coastal research conducted two surveys of climate scientists, 1996/2003 and reported their results. The question asked was:
"“To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the
result of anthropogenic causes?"

Boomer Chick

05-15-2005, 04:15 PM

I don't find any actual malice in the written statements by your author, in which case the suit would be libel, rather than slander, anyways. Plus public figures aren't usually very protected from either libel or slander.

Thanks, it actually wasn't slanderous.

Well, I was a little flamboyant on my terms. I should have termed it "scathing criticism." But indeed his piece was extremely critical of Inhofe, and might has well have said he was a complete idiot.

The writer sets the case, proposes the "what ifs" then gives the factual punch. The conveyor belt has slowed. Fact. Then he writes this, continuing on to explain the situation and the novel Inhofe recommended on the floor of Congress as a source for scientific evidence refuting global warming:

You can choose to believe the Dr. Gagosians of this world or take sides with the honorable Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Inhofe said that "catastrophic global warming is a hoax," and possibly the greatest hoax "ever perpetrated on the American people." Last January, he actually revealed one of his prime sources for this conclusion to be…a novel.

He throws another one-two punch at Inhofe with an expert criticism:

But can a novel really be said to be part of the global warming debate? David B. Sandalow, an environmental scholar at the Brookings Institute, doesn't think so. "If [Crichton] has something serious to say on the science of climate change, he should say so in a work of nonfiction and submit his work for peer review. The result could be instructive—for him and us all."

Last sentence:

A possible effect is that Europe stays relatively cool as the rest of the world burns up. And wouldn't that irritate the Francophobes in the Congress, presumably including Senator Inhofe?

Yes, it was a scathing criticism and not actually slanderous.

slander:
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

As far as the article, your guy cites Dr. Wallace Broeker, who coined the term "Atlantic conveyor", yet makes the comment:
"OK, now imagine what would happen if this wide, warm flow of water were to slow down or even stop. Ice ages are made of the kind of temperature drop that would be expected if the Earth lost one of its key circulatory systems. In the 2004 book Feeling the Heat, I reported that this process has continued unabated since the last Ice Age, "but global warming is throwing in a monkey wrench by melting ice in the Arctic Ocean."

So? The introduction was setting up the "what ifs" which you quoted.."OK...." the Broeker part was toward the end of the article in which he (Broeker) was commenting on Jean's work about the conveyor stopping during a glaciation period in the past. I found all the facts and references to be quite cogent and in order.

Wallace Broecker, senior Lamont-Doherty geochemist and a founding father of the conveyor model of ocean circulation, comments, "Jean's work suggests that conveyor circulation virtually stopped during the last glacial maximum."

I find this to be the clincher as far as the facts given in the article:

"And now the news. The online edition of the Times of London reported May 8 that the Gulf Stream slowdown is no longer theoretical, but is already occurring. Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, visited the Arctic ice cap on Royal Navy submarines and discovered "that one of the 'engines' driving the Gulf Stream—the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea—has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength. The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures."

Reynolds:

Jim Motavalli is being dishonest, because he surely knows that Broeker himself wrote an article years ago in which he took the "hockey stick" guys to task for not showing in their graph the Medieval Optimum temperature rise greater than todays temperature change, which was certainly not of anthropogenic origin. Matavalli also lies when he says that the conveyor " has continued unabated since the last Ice Age."

Motavalli said he reported his opinion in his book. Maybe he wasn't right, but he didn't lie in that sentence. He did report it, did he not?

Motavalli only quoted Broeker regarding the Gulf Stream. There was nothing else said by Broeker in this article.

The Medieval termperature rise may have indeed happened, but it certainly wasn't due to a slowing in the Gulf Stream which is connected to Northern European COOLING. Since the Medieval period was there a sudden stopping of the Gulf Stream? Is this what you're saying, Jay? I'm confused with what your point IS exactly regarding Motavalli's lies.

As far as global warming due to anthropogenic..... this may be Motavalli's opinion and it is certainly being scientifically debated. He may indeed be reading those scientists who say it IS anthropogenically influenced. So, is that necessarily a lie? This is an opinion piece as well.

Oh well, I thought it was a well written opinion article with relevant facts and quotations.

Simply not true, and the father of the Atlantic Conveyor, Wallace Broeker, proves it:
http://www-geol.unine.ch/cours/geol/ScienceBroecker%20291[/QUOTE]

What's not true? That the Gulf Stream is slowing? That it had never slowed before? Broeker says that there was a Little Ice Age after the Medieval period, so that must mean the Gulf Stream slowed a bit. Just how much it slowed, we don't know, however. Is the slowing now, just another mini-ice age or is it a larger trend? We don't know. If it stops completely it might prove to be a colder situation in that northern European area. The entire global dynamic has changed since the Medieval period due to the tropical rain forest depletion and other factors, so not all is equal in predicting the behavior of the various oceanic and atmospheric balancing systems. That the Gulf Stream is slowing is all we can say at this point and the temperatures they predict, will cool in certain areas. If the Gulf Stream had stopped entirely in that mini-ice age following the warming, do you think it would have been habitable in that northern European area? Who knows? Therefore, it seems Motavalli might have known about Broecker and figured the Gulf Stream had slowed, but was still active. It's a matter of interpretation. A mini-ice age is not an ICE AGE with glaciation and complete ice cover.

halva

05-15-2005, 09:07 PM

You see BC. The result of your approach to debate at Arianna's is that we are debating about what others want to debate, not what we ourselves want to debate.

Mike

05-15-2005, 09:38 PM

You see BC. The result of your approach to debate at Arianna's is that we are debating about what others want to debate, not what we ourselves want to debate.Is someone preventing you from expressing an opinion, or "debating" the point of view of another? If such is happening, its not evident to me.

Boomer Chick

05-15-2005, 09:47 PM

You see BC. The result of your approach to debate at Arianna's is that we are debating about what others want to debate, not what we ourselves want to debate.

Hi! Halva!

Actually, Halva, it matters not whether X challenges Z or Z challenges X.

So what do you want to debate? Haven't seen a post regarding your desire. This board is so dead I'd appreciate a little debate. You call this Jay commentary debatable? HUH! That's hilarious!

Take care of yourself, Halva....... you're such an interesting fellow!

BC

Boomer Chick

05-15-2005, 09:52 PM

Is someone preventing you from expressing an opinion, or "debating" the point of view of another? If such is happening, its not evident to me.

Hello! Mike!

Yes, I agree and actually find Halva's comment quite vacuous.

Thanks for peeking in!

BC :)

halva

05-15-2005, 10:26 PM

halva

05-15-2005, 11:04 PM

This is what Reynolds said to BC at the Mother Nature thread (posting 7162), to dissuade her from encouraging the apparently repentant 'chemtrails debunker' WMM, who appeared to have abandoned Reynolds' little group of disrupters and has now apparently left this forum:

"It really seems you are a trifle gullible to take ANYTHING on the internet at face value.

Oh, and by the way, yes, your complaints precipitated moderator involvement in getting IS banned, in getting Wayne appointed as moderator, and also getting Wayne deposed as moderator! That is my opinion based on the sequence of events and other nuances.

Be careful what you ask for, BC, because you might just get it. "

Reynolds shows in this posting that he does not respect even BC, his only defender on this thread (apart from occasionally visiting debunkers who drop in to throw a grenade from time to time). His sole aim is to make mischief, which he does by turning anyone and everyone, in succession, against each other. In this posting he is 'defending me, halva'. (!!!!!)

Mike the moderator shows no sign of existing, either through his presence on the thread, or through moderating anything, until he suddenly sees the need to protect BC from a comment I make to her.

BC cannot prevent Reynolds from driving away WMM, whom she was pleading should stay here. BC cannot prevent Reynolds from launching into a new round of repetitive personal harrassment of footsoldier, one of the offences for which he should have been expelled from here long ago.

BC can get everything she wants at Arianna's, it seems, except to get Reynolds to listen to her or take her seriously. The moderating policy at Arianna's is that we are all to be like BC and turn the other cheek for Reynolds to slap. Or go away, of course.

Footsoldier you must once again take a position, now that Mike has poked his head in here again. Do you reiterate your demand that Reynolds be expelled permanently from all the threads of 'Science in the News'?? Yes or no??

jayreynolds

05-16-2005, 06:19 AM

Mike, remove Reynolds permanently from this forum. He has broken the regulations that you yourself have laid down.

Would you like me to post our relevant private correspondence on this subject??

Also, footsoldier, take a position on this demand. For or against. Your position in the past has been for.

Wayne, you have invited me to engage in debate at the opendemocracy forum.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44251&messageID=61890

I do have some things to say over there. Things which might add to their understanding of why they have failed to garner the support they wish to achieve. I am wondering whether, if I should engage in that discussion, you will seek to have me banned there as you have done at every other forum we have both participated in together?

Mike

05-16-2005, 06:25 AM

This is a "discussion and debate" board, Halva. That means that all sides of a discussion can (and will) have their opportunity to say what they want about the issue. The fact is that -- through the kind offices of "individual preferences" -- a poster can choose to ignore comments made by other posters. If you don't want to read the comments posted by JayReynolds, my suggestion for you is...

DON'T READ THEM

I made that a bit larger and put it in red to illustrate the notion that any poster (even you) can elect to use the facilities that the software allows.

halva

05-16-2005, 07:32 AM

Wayne, you have invited me to engage in debate at the opendemocracy forum.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44251&messageID=61890

I do have some things to say over there. Things which might add to their understanding of why they have failed to garner the support they wish to achieve. I am wondering whether, if I should engage in that discussion, you will seek to have me banned there as you have done at every other forum we have both participated in together?

The dynamics of an activist forum whose declared purpose is to host a 'self-criticism' session of the movement against climate change has a certain logic to it such that it should not be necessary for me to take the initiative at Open Democracy to have you banned.

Generally speaking, of course, my policy is that you should be banned everywhere, but that does not mean it is always my task to be the leader in banning you. Obviously it would suit me better if I can leave that to others. My policy in inviting you to Open Democracy in one way has a similar logic to it as my initial posting here at Arianna's: to demonstrate how the movement for action on climate change if it has to have any chances of success must come to terms with what, unbeknown to the general public, has been proposed and, if we are to believe our senses, also implemented as a way of addressing that problem.

(Of course, and to avoid misunderstanding, I did not invite you here to Arianna's. You came here as part of your general policy of stalking me, as you have stalked, and continue to stalk, others.)

There was another motive behind my Open Democracy invitation, and that was to attempt to divert you from what I can see is the beginnings here at Arianna's of a reversion to a familiar repetitive pattern of harassment of footsoldier and obsessive harping on a subject concerning her that is of interest only to yourself, which neither BC, footsoldier nor I can prevent you from reintroducing, and which moderator Mike is too uninformed, confused or unprincipled to be able to, or want to, stop you from reintroducing.

My gamble in inviting you to Open Democracy is that their purported commitment to providing a useful venue for the climate change movement will equip them to defend themselves better against you than Arianna Online has proven willing or able to do.

Arianna Huffington has expressed support for the climate change movement, but we have seen here in this forum how much that support is worth.
.
Moderator Mike would like perhaps to have some general philosophical debates about 'freedom of speech' and under other circumstances I might have been interested in having a discussion on that subject, on which there are things to be said.

But under the circumstances of harassment prevailing in 'Science in the News' I have only one thing to say to Mike, and that is: implement your own rules.

halva

05-16-2005, 07:36 AM

Footsoldier you cannot sit on the fence at this point.

jayreynolds

05-16-2005, 10:59 AM

There was another motive behind my Open Democracy invitation, and that was to attempt to divert you]
Sneaky little devil, you.
Wayne, I might choose to walk the road you invited me on, but then again I might not.
However, be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it!

halva

05-16-2005, 11:01 AM

Sneaky little devil, you.
Wayne, I might choose to walk the road you invited me on, but then again I might not.
However, be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it!

You will not post at Open Democracy Raynolds.

foot_soldier

05-16-2005, 01:55 PM

Footsoldier you cannot sit on the fence at this point.
I do sleep between around midnight and 6:00am like most normal people. After that I’m tied up with a 9-hour work day. So – here I am.

Look, if Reynolds’ posting privileges weren’t revoked for deliberately and in direct violation of clearly articulated and posted AO Forum Rules revealing the full name of another poster, they will never be revoked.

I’ve accepted that state of affairs and maybe you should, too.

The only reason I’m still around is to update a few established informational threads as needed to keep them current. Please be reminded that less than 1% of my free time is devoted to participation in this venue at this point.

halva

05-16-2005, 02:27 PM

I do sleep between around midnight and 6:00am like most normal people. After that I’m tied up with a 9-hour work day. So – here I am.

Look, if Reynolds’ posting privileges weren’t revoked for deliberately and in direct violation of clearly articulated and posted AO Forum Rules revealing the full name of another poster, they will never be revoked.

I’ve accepted that state of affairs and maybe you should, too.

The only reason I’m still around is to update a few established informational threads as needed to keep them current. Please be reminded that less than 1% of my free time is devoted to participation in this venue at this point.

Footsoldier, if you are going to keep posting here, which is an incentive for me to visit, (and I have urged you many times to cease doing so), then insist on standards being maintained.
BC has successfully managed to make moderators here comply with some aspects of her conceptions of what should be excluded, and if she can do it then so can we.

If you do not insist, then there will be a continual sliding back towards the completely outrageous situations we have seen in the past. Please either completely leave this forum or assist me in demanding that moderators here apply rules that they themselves proclaim.

Give me ONE reason why I should accept a state of affairs which you say you accept, but nevertheless COMPLAIN about, to me, not to the man who is in a position to do something about it!!. .

foot_soldier

05-16-2005, 02:51 PM

Halva, the man who is "in a position to do something about it" clearly has no intention of doing so.

I've come to my own turning point in just the last 24 hours where this venue is concerned. You know very well that I'd prefer to see actual enforcement of stated rules regarding behavior of individual posters toward other participants in this forum. And you also know that I have in fact on two occasions appealed in writing to one of the moderators for an evaluation of this situation and was completely ignored. So, I have made an effort in that regard.

For the record I respect the sincerity of your efforts and I do support them. But you know what they say, "You can't always get what you want..."

There will be no more complaining from my quarter.

foot_soldier

05-16-2005, 02:53 PM

Please be reminded that less than 1% of my free time is devoted to participation in this venue at this point.
.

Boomer Chick

05-16-2005, 04:37 PM

Boomer Chick

05-16-2005, 04:46 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1612958,00.html

May 15, 2005

Wildlife groups axe Bellamy as global warming ‘heretic’
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

PROFESSOR David Bellamy is likely to lose his role as the figurehead of two leading wildlife organisations because of his refusal to believe in man-made global warming.
The television presenter and conservationist is the president of Plantlife International and of the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. Both organisations have given warnings that wildlife faces a catastrophe because of global warming.

They have been acutely embarrassed to discover that while they have been campaigning to raise awareness, their president has been leading seminars and writing articles in science magazines declaring that man-made warming is a myth.

Last week Plantlife International, Britain’s leading charity dedicated to the conservation of wild plants, wrote to Bellamy to say that his term of office would end in the autumn and he would not be asked to renew it.

His presidency of the Wildlife Trusts — which has 562,000 members and manages 2,500 nature reserves — also ends in the autumn and is unlikely to be renewed.

Stephanie Hilborne, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, confirmed that Bellamy’s position was due to be discussed at a board meeting at the end of this month.

“We are not happy with his line on climate change. It is a very serious situation and there is a lot we need to talk about,” she said. “Our views certainly differ from our president’s and that is not a good situation to be in.”

Both organisations paid tribute to Bellamy who, they said, had put a huge amount of time and effort into supporting their other work.

Bellamy, 72, a former botany lecturer at Durham University, endeared himself to generations of youngsters with a series of popular wildlife programmes that ran from the 1970s through to 1999. He has also written many wildlife books.

He won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.

In January he gave a keynote speech at the Royal Institution in London which was hosting Apocalypse No, a conference organised by the Scientific Alliance.

“Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed,” he said.

Last month he made similar assertions in New Scientist magazine when he claimed that glaciers were expanding because the world was getting cooler rather than warmer. The claim contradicted recent scientific studies that found 85% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Bellamy said this weekend: “If an organisation asked me to stand down of course I would, if they actually think I’m doing more harm than good.”

He added: “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything. When I say that they say ‘You must be in the pay of the oil industry’. I’m not. I’m not in the pay of anybody.”

Additional reporting: Chris Whyatt

***

Unfair, isn't it, Jay? Well, seems as though the British wildlife environmentalists are QUITE serious, indeed!

Boomer Chick

05-16-2005, 04:50 PM

Tim Kaine of Virginia blogs about global warming:

http://www.raisingkaine.com/blog/?p=235

Active links on site!

Reason #132 Why Local and State Elections Matter: Global Warming
Filed under: Environment Republicans Democrats— Lowell @ 4:49 pm
A story in today’s New York Times, about 132 mayors across the country embracing the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, caught my eye. According to the article, “The mayors, from cities as liberal as Los Angeles and as conservative as Hurst, Tex., represent nearly 29 million citizens in 35 states… They are pledging to have their cities meet what would have been a binding requirement for the nation had the Bush administration not rejected the Kyoto Protocol: a reduction in heat-trapping gas emissions to levels 7 percent below those of 1990, by 2012.”

These actions by mayors, combined with similar moves by governors of states like California, New York and 8 other Northeast states, are extremely significant. They are also extremely illustrative of the importance that local leaders — and local elections — can have on national, even international issues, like global warming.

This year in Virginia, we have a great opportunity to make a difference, by “thinking globally and acting locally.” In June, and then in November, we can go to the polls and elect leaders willing to take action on pressing issues such as global warming, even if the federal government is failing us. If you want to find out how Virginia’s candidates for House of Delegates, Attorney General, Lt. Governor and Governor stand on important issues like this, check out Project Vote Smart and make a smart choice on election day.

***

magistre

05-16-2005, 05:15 PM

The only problem is this: It is too late to stop global warming. We do not have the technoligy to save the climate.

foot_soldier

05-16-2005, 05:37 PM

FS,

Precisely what rule was broken, may I ask?

And if it had to do with real names, my I ask another related question?

Is your real name listed on other online sites? In other words, is your real name present in cyberworld almost like public domain? If I were to do a google search, could your name come up on other links besides the normal name/address information?

IF, your name is out on the web as an author of an article or a member of a site, does the rule of privacy apply? I'm really confused here as to exactly what Reynolds did to break the rules.

As I've said, I've only seen persistence, some stubborn assumptions, some red letters, and some attitude, but nothing that I could see regarding rule-breaking.

Please inform me if I missed something.
Reynolds has posted my first and last names on several occasions in the "Normal Contrails" and "Boston Photos" threads. I did not consent to this. Period. I do not as a matter of policy use my last name in a public venue - ever.

I might note here that you yourself commented in no uncertain terms that you did not like it when "halva" addressed you by your real first name rather than your AO username at one point in the "Mother Nature" thread shortly after you registered here.

I have generally posted as "Deborah" on the few forums in which I have actively participated since 1999. I reserve the right to withhold my last name from the public domain and have in fact always done just that. I consider this a personal decision and mine alone to make. It's not like I'm the only individual in all of cyberspace who chooses to retain some personal privacy in this way. As far as I'm concerned it's a matter of common sense.

So. A rule has in fact been broken here. Unless of course, and unbeknownst to the rest of us, Reynolds has special immunity in this regard.

In case you're still confused as to which rule was broken, here it is:

The following have been composed and agreed-upon by Lib and Mike.

1. Making a threat against another poster or their family is not allowed.

2. Revealing information about a poster they have not posted themselves in the current AO forum is not permitted.

3. Threads whose purpose is to attack another poster are not permitted. That would include "Polls" whose obvious intent is an attack.

4. It is fine to attack another poster's point of view but posts whose purpose is to personally attack another poster or their family are not permitted.

5. Flagrantly breaking the rules or repeatedly breaking the rules will result in temporary or permanent banning depending on the nature of the infraction.

6. Individuals may not use multiple log-ins, that is, the same person may not post using more than one name.
I hope this clarifies the matter.

And, yes, I was upset about it. As I think anybody would be.

Oh - by the way, in answer to your question: "If I were to do a google search, could your name come up on other links besides the normal name/address information?"

Yes. Thanks to Jay Reynolds my first and last name now "come up" via Google in connection with a number of his libelous posts in this venue. This was a deliberate action on his part.

Enough said. I should think things would be quite clear by now.

Cute?

Not in my book.

jayreynolds

05-16-2005, 07:45 PM

Regarding 'footsoldier' and the name business.
I was asked by the moderator some time ago to not use the name even though we have known each other for years, since 'footsoldier' had not used it here at the AO forum.

I complied with the moderator's ruling.

Wayne basically blames me for his own shortcomings, even going so far as claiming I caused something to become "flaccid", whatever that is.

A psychologist friend of mine says he appears to be in a "transference projection meltdown" which could take years to get worked out. I wish my old buddy Wayne the best luck.

foot_soldier

05-16-2005, 07:57 PM

.....Regarding 'footsoldier' and the name business.
I was asked by the moderator some time ago to not use the name even though we have known each other for years, since 'footsoldier' had not used it here at the AO forum.....
Cut it out, Reynolds. We don't "know" each other, period.

The bottom line here is that you took it upon yourself to use my first and last names here in this venue when I had not myself revealed that personal information. So you were "asked to stop." Big deal. The damage is done. As you of course know full well.

Boomer Chick

05-16-2005, 08:29 PM

Why Global Warming Puts Bib [a kind of fish] on the Menu
By Steve Connor
The Independent UK

Friday 13 May 2005

Nearly two-thirds of fish species in the North Sea have moved further north in search of colder waters because global warming is driving sea temperatures higher.

Scientists have compiled the first unequivocal evidence linking a major northward shift of North Sea fish species with rising ocean temperatures.

The researchers believe the movement is more dramatic than the simple migration of individual fish and represents a fundamental change in the distribution of marine species.

A study that covers 25 years of data has found the range of nearly two-thirds of North Sea species - including commercially important fish such as cod and haddock - have shifted either further north or to colder depths.

As cold-water fish have gone north, exotic warmer-water species such as the bib, scaldfish and lesser weever have extended their range by moving into the North Sea from the south, said Alison Perry, a marine biologist at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

continued at link:

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/051305EC.shtml

Boomer Chick

05-16-2005, 08:48 PM

Reynolds has posted my first and last names on several occasions in the "Normal Contrails" and "Boston Photos" threads. I did not consent to this. Period. I do not as a matter of policy use my last name in a public venue - ever.

I might note here that you yourself commented in no uncertain terms that you did not like it when "halva" addressed you by your real first name rather than your AO username at one point in the "Mother Nature" thread shortly after you registered here.

I have generally posted as "Deborah" on the few forums in which I have actively participated since 1999. I reserve the right to withhold my last name from the public domain and have in fact always done just that. I consider this a personal decision and mine alone to make. It's not like I'm the only individual in all of cyberspace who chooses to retain some personal privacy in this way. As far as I'm concerned it's a matter of common sense.

So. A rule has in fact been broken here. Unless of course, and unbeknownst to the rest of us, Reynolds has special immunity in this regard.

In case you're still confused as to which rule was broken, here it is:

I hope this clarifies the matter.

And, yes, I was upset about it. As I think anybody would be.

Oh - by the way, in answer to your question: "If I were to do a google search, could your name come up on other links besides the normal name/address information?"

Yes. Thanks to Jay Reynolds my first and last name now "come up" via Google in connection with a number of his libelous posts in this venue. This was a deliberate action on his part.

Enough said. I should think things would be quite clear by now.

Cute?

Not in my book.

Thank you, FS, I see now what the situation was/is. Why would it be "cute?" Do you think I would think that's "cute? " Hope not, because I don't. So it seems Reynolds was contacted by the mods to cease and desist and he did. But the damage is done, heh? Links of his posts with your full name on them.. out in cyber space? Well, I wonder, Jay, if you could somehow get those links deleted or posts deleted? Would that be possible? I think this would be the best way, including an apology, to prove your fair and just intentions at this point. I can't control anyone, let alone this situation, but at least I can offer a suggestion. If you could delete those links, posts, or listed posts with her full name on them, Jay, you might actually be able to clear this "bad blood." Might be an appropriate gesture? As far as the posts, here, perhaps you could ask Mike to delete them and then somehow, I don't know how, get the reference links deleted, too. I don't know, it just seems the righteous and best way to go about solving this sticky impasse.

halva

05-16-2005, 09:43 PM

Just by way of background, BC, now that you are attempting to get Reynolds to try to undo some of the damage caused by one of his offences....the following is part of what I submitted in relation to Reynolds when moderating.

"Jay Reynolds has repeatedly violated rule No. 2 in particular and Rule No. 4 in general in virtually every other thread in the Science Forum. Reynolds revealed Footsoldier's full name on several occasions and submitted several posts with the sole purpose of attacking not only "Footsoldier" but also "Sore Throat", "Amber", "The Shadow", "insurrectionchemistry" and "Halva".

Footsoldier wrote twice to express her frustration over Reynolds' revealing of her full name and to point out that Reynolds was repeatedly stating things about her that are simply not true - in other words, attacking her. She never heard back from you.

Reynolds also persistently claimed that another former poster 'gaiacomm' was in fact a young man called Lance Haubrick. When other posters checked with the real Lance Haubrick, this information was also found to be false, but exposure of this never induced Reynolds to modify his in any case improper (in terms of forum regulations) claim.

(Indeed, BC, he would not modify it even now. Check it out with him and you will see.)

By contrast with the consideration shown to Reynolds, petitions and complaints in relation to other participants, for example, to 'insurrection chemistry' were replied to in detail. 'Insurrection chemistry' was eventually suspended in response to them.

One of the favourite tactics of Reynolds (and not only he, but others who have received similar training) is to subtly misquote another poster - or outright misrepresent them. Most people will normally feel compelled to respond in order to set things straight - no one likes to be
misrepresented - and once one responds the course from thereon is all downhill. Reynolds' purpose is to disrupt the flow of information and related discourse and thereby destroy continuity.

Unfortunately any forum that is seriously discussing climate change and related public health issues is eventually infiltrated by people of the Reynolds type. They are very well organized and they operate in groups. (As evidence for this, note how Reynolds was immediately 'replaced'
during his [arbitrarily and unilaterally abbreviated] period of suspension by another
poster retailing a similar message, who never appeared again once Reynolds had
returned to the forum.)

On actively-moderated forums they are permanently barred from relentlessly interfering with civil and coherent discussion.

As duly appointed moderator at Arianna On-Line I request that you refer Reynolds to Robb or Noah for permanent banning."

BC, the offences under rule 4 are what are most relevant at this moment, for it is evident that Reynolds is preparing to go into a new round of personal attacks against Footsoldier, as he always does when there is nothing else to occupy his attention.

foot_soldier

05-16-2005, 11:46 PM

I'm going to keep this simple. Here is Forum Rule Number 2, "agreed upon by Lib and Mike":

2. Revealing information about a poster they have not posted themselves in the current AO forum is not permitted.

User "jayreynolds" has broken this rule by repeatedly posting my full name in at least two of the active threads in this forum.

He was "asked to stop doing this." Fine. But that does not resolve the issue as long as my full name remains plastered all over the threads in question. I did not myself volunteer this personal information and I want it removed in every single instance that it appears.

This information does not appear anywhere on the Web aside from in this venue. In other words, it is my choice to protect my personal privacy.

Mike, I expect a timely response from you in regard to this issue. I'm telling you I want my first and last names removed from every post at Arianna Online in which they appear thanks to user "jayreynolds" and I expect you to authorize and enforce this request in accordance with your own rules if user "jayreynolds" does not himself volunteer to honor it. Sorry to put you on the spot publicly but I did try twice to deal with this matter in a private e-mail to you and was unsuccessful.

Thank you.

jayreynolds

05-17-2005, 05:36 AM

I'm telling you I want my first and last names removed from every post at Arianna Online in which they appear thanks to user "jayreynolds"

FS, I will commence removing references to your real name today in an effort to repair our somewhat strained relationship. Thinking back, I suppose it was too forward of me to expect you to allow your real name to be associated with a hoax. One day I truly hope that we can become best friends and have a laugh about all this, because you will eventually look yourself in the mirror and realize that what you are doing has been wrong all along, and set things straight. The upside is that you will have set yourself free from the stigma and be able to proudly show a stand for the truth. Though you will most likely be excoriated by those who remain associated with the hoax, your personal reputation among worthy people will benefit, and your conscience will become clear.

Considering there are well over 700 pages to check throgh, this will take some time, so bear with me as I get this done.

proudly using my real name,
Jay Reynolds

jayreynolds

05-17-2005, 05:41 AM

I have generally posted as "Deborah" on the few forums in which I have actively participated since 1999. I reserve the right to withhold my last name from the public domain and have in fact always done just that. I consider this a personal decision and mine alone to make. r]

As per the rules, and since you have disclosed your first name here at the AO forum, I will only delete the surname.
Jay

halva

05-17-2005, 10:25 AM

FS, I will commence removing references to your real name today in an effort to repair our somewhat strained relationship. Thinking back, I suppose it was too forward of me to expect you to allow your real name to be associated with a hoax. One day I truly hope that we can become best friends and have a laugh about all this, because you will eventually look yourself in the mirror and realize that what you are doing has been wrong all along, and set things straight. The upside is that you will have set yourself free from the stigma and be able to proudly show a stand for the truth. Though you will most likely be excoriated by those who remain associated with the hoax, your personal reputation among worthy people will benefit, and your conscience will become clear.

Considering there are well over 700 pages to check throgh, this will take some time, so bear with me as I get this done.

proudly using my real name,
Jay Reynolds

There can be no common ground with the position Reynolds is putting forward here and my prediction is that Footsoldier will come to regret having been so undemanding in what she has requested.

For a start I do not believe for a moment that Reynolds is sincere in a single thing he says about 'the chemtrails hoax'. I would like WMM to express his opinion on this.

Boomer Chick

05-17-2005, 12:22 PM

Most appropriate of you, Jay, and I respect you for your efforts. :D

Can it, Halva, he won't be banned and won't be leaving..... accept it.

BC :)

halva

05-17-2005, 02:38 PM

What do you mean when you say 'can it'??

Boomer Chick

05-17-2005, 03:35 PM

What do you mean when you say 'can it'??

It's a common colloquial saying here related to canned goods.... you know, you put it in a can made of metal .... like a can of peas or a can of tomato sauce? Commonly it means .... be quiet.

;)

Boomer Chick

05-17-2005, 03:40 PM

Dave Matthews Band and Ben and Jerry's launch concert tour for global warming awareness!

http://www.cmj.com/articles/display_article.php?id=3547681

;)

Boomer Chick

05-17-2005, 03:44 PM

Grass-roots action on global warming

Mayors representing almost 30 million Americans rebuff Bush on the Kyoto Protocol, pledging to cut greenhouse gases on their own.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Paul Brown

May 17, 2005

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/17/mayors_and_climate_change/index_np.html

Boomer Chick

05-17-2005, 03:48 PM

Global Warming "To HIt Africa Hard "

Business Day (Johannesburg)

May 17, 2005
Posted to the web May 17, 2005

Siseko Njobeni
Johannesburg

http://allafrica.com/stories/200505171394.html

Boomer Chick

05-17-2005, 03:53 PM

http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=2575

US global warming approach ‘reprehensible’

Tuesday 17 May 2005

The US Government’s stance on climate change has been strongly criticised by environmentalists, following a radio interview in which a high level official questioned the scientific facts behind global warming. Speaking on the BBC’s Today programme, the US Chief Climate Negotiator Harlon Watson claimed that the Bush Administration remained unconvinced over the need for urgent action, and reiterated the government’s fears over the economic effects of an international climate change programme.

The position has been described as ‘reprehensible’.

"We have unanimous, international agreement from the world's leading scientists that climate change is happening, that we are responsible, and that urgent action is required. Thousands are already suffering the devastating effects, and thousands more threatened. The rest of the international community is committed to action, yet the world's largest polluter still denies climate change,” said Friends of the Earth International's Climate Campaigner Catherine Pearce.

"The G8 meeting provides an unprecedented opportunity for the richest nations to address the biggest threat facing our planet, but this opportunity will be missed due to the disgraceful, outdated and downright dangerous behaviour of the US," she added.

Boomer Chick

05-17-2005, 03:58 PM

"Cool It on Global Warming"

An op ed piece resonating with Jay Reynolds. Actually it's just a letter to the editor!

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_334845.html

halva

05-17-2005, 07:55 PM

It's a common colloquial saying here related to canned goods.... you know, you put it in a can made of metal .... like a can of peas or a can of tomato sauce? Commonly it means .... be quiet.

;)

I know what it means. I was wondering why you were asking me to be quiet.

halva

05-17-2005, 08:21 PM

"Cool It on Global Warming"

An op ed piece resonating with Jay Reynolds. Actually it's just a letter to the editor!

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_334845.html

Would Gregory Chrash 'can it' if Ross Gelbspan took the line with him that I took with 'epitaph' at Open Democracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44251&start=0&tstart=0)?

Boomer Chick

05-17-2005, 10:04 PM

I know what it means. I was wondering why you were asking me to be quiet.

I should have quoted you, Halva. It was concerning your remark about Reynolds. He is making a concerted effort to comply with FS's wishes, to set things right, and I would think you could give him a little credit. Instead you seek to go beyond what I, Mike, and everyone have expressed in regard to Jay.............. he stays. Please get over it and start contributing something worthy of public consumption.

Thank you.

BC :rolleyes:

halva

05-17-2005, 10:36 PM

BC every concession we get from Reynolds is a result of my busting my gut against systematic undermining from you and from the so-called moderators of this forum.

jayreynolds

05-18-2005, 04:03 AM

Would Gregory Chrash 'can it' if Ross Gelbspan took the line with him that I took with 'epitaph' at Open Democracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44251&start=0&tstart=0)?
Wayne, looks like none of the people at OD(what's in a name?) are wanting to discuss anything with you. Do they allow "chemtrails" proselytizers to post?

I know that Ross Gelbspan took a dim view of it when you falsely attributed bowdlerized quotes from him to make it appear he shared your views on the hoax. Come to think of it, do any real scientists share your views?

jayreynolds

05-18-2005, 04:10 AM

BC every concession we get from Reynolds is a result of my busting my gut against systematic undermining from you and from the so-called moderators of this forum.
Sorry that I may have caused you to bust your gut, Wayne.
lol

halva

05-18-2005, 04:44 AM

Wayne, looks like none of the people at OD(what's in a name?) are wanting to discuss anything with you.

That includes 'epitaph', which was my point. Could Gelbspan shut anthropogenic climate change 'sceptics' like you up if he did with you what I did with 'epitaph'? That's a question for him to answer. I am sure he would like to silence people like you if he could.

The thread at Open Democracy is continuing, but as far as I can see the logic of it is not such as to provide you with any opportunities for shoving yourself into it.

jayreynolds

05-18-2005, 11:47 AM

That includes 'epitaph', which was my point. Could Gelbspan shut anthropogenic climate change 'sceptics' like you up if he did with you what I did with 'epitaph'? That's a question for him to answer. I am sure he would like to silence people like you if he could.

The thread at Open Democracy is continuing, but as far as I can see the logic of it is not such as to provide you with any opportunities for shoving yourself into it.

Wayne, my buddy Ross Gelbspan shut you down pretty quick, and will never take you seriously again. See, when you deliberately misquoted him publicly to promote your hoax, and got caught doing it, that was the end of it for you. Same with Deborah, Carnicom, Thomas, same with so many others who have lost all credibility because of the hoax. Now you are all 'damaged goods', sitting around unsold and unsellable, waiting for your day to head to the dustbin of history.

Gone the way of the 'Piltdown Man'!

jayreynolds

05-18-2005, 11:58 AM

Boomer Chick

05-18-2005, 03:36 PM

halva

05-18-2005, 07:28 PM

Enjoy yourselves.

Boomer Chick

05-19-2005, 09:24 AM

Enjoy yourselves.

You won't stay, Halva, and represent the chemtrail theory or even the research? Why can't you stand your ground here? You're entitled to your say just as anyone is. I do hope you reconsider what I sense in your simple statement.

Boomer Chick

05-19-2005, 09:25 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/laurie-david/exxonmobilas-offensive-_1184.html

By Laurie David

The hypocrisy of ExxonMobil’s new multi-million dollar ad campaign is a classic example of extreme hubris: if we say it, it must be so. The ads -- running nonstop on TV and in print -- extol the company’s commitment to our great energy challenges... but cleverly never mention the words “global warming.”

These ads are beyond audacious, with lines like “It will take straightforward honest dialogue about the hard truths that confront us all.” And: “Wishful thinking must not cloud real thinking.” Who is writing this stuff?

No doubt it was in pursuit of “straightforward honest dialogue” that they plowed $12 million dollars into organizations whose main purpose is to spread misinformation and confusion about the wide consensus in the scientific community that global warming is happening now -- and we caused it.

Are there real live human beings running this company? Do they go home after work, kiss their wives and have family dinner? Do their kids say “Hi, Daddy, how was work today?”

ExxonMobil is a huge part of our global warming problem. It’s time they started taking the excess cash they are making off of the American people (last quarter they reaped $8 billion in windfall profits from the high prices at the pump) and started really trying to solve the problem. These massive profits (which the company has complained is so much cash they don’t know what to do with it all) make the new energy bill, with its subsidies for this ultra-rich company, a cold, hard slap in the face of the American taxpayer. ExxonMobil and their cronies in Congress had better wake up and engage those “hard truths” they like to talk about, because there’s no advertising campaign yet invented that will refreeze the polar ice caps or slow down the extreme weather heading our way.

http://www.stopglobalwarming.com

Mike

05-19-2005, 10:55 AM

I should have quoted you, Halva. It was concerning your remark about Reynolds. He is making a concerted effort to comply with FS's wishes, to set things right, and I would think you could give him a little credit. Instead you seek to go beyond what I, Mike, and everyone have expressed in regard to Jay.............. he stays. Please get over it and start contributing something worthy of public consumption.

Thank you.

BC :rolleyes:Well-stated, BC.

halva

05-20-2005, 07:20 AM

Anyone interested in continuing the positive element of these discussions at the forums to which they have been adjourned can contact me by private e-mail.

jayreynolds

05-20-2005, 12:01 PM

-Hawaii's Biggest Polluter Refuses to Stop!
-Has Been Spreading Poison for Over Twenty Years!
-Nation's Top Producer of SO2
-Could Be Causing the Island's High Asthma Death Rate

What in the world is Jay Reynolds talking about, and what can be done to get this corrected?

The Kilauea volcano, which has been erupting for the past twenty years, produces 2000 tons of SO2 each day, sometimes much more.
Annual production totals 730,000 tons.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/VolGasPollution.html

By contrast, the top SO2 producing power plant in the nation, the Bowen Facility in Georgia, produces 164,881 tons/year.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/documents/dirtiest_plants2.pdf

Kilauea also produces more than 700,000 tons of CO2 each year, as much as 132,000 SUV's would produce annually.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.html

The emissions from Kilaeua cause local pollution, especially when winds are calm and in directions which bring the fumes into Hilo or Kona, and local officials term these periods "VOG"(Volcanic/Smog).
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/VolGasPollution.html

The volcano's lava flows downhill and into the sea, and upon contact with seawater, produces an acidic gas via chemical reaction with sodium chloride in the water. The water vapor mixed with hydrochloric acid is made even more potent by the addition of fine particles of volcanic glass. Local officials call this phenomemon "LAZE"(lava/haze).
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Thumblinks/laze_page.html

Hawaii has the highest rates of asthma mortality and has had high asthma death rates for centuries.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9088297&dopt=Abstract

The eruption continues:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/kilauea/update/main.html

And you can see the volcano on a webcam which updates every 5 minutes:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/cam/index.htm

All in all, be happy you don't live near such a volcano.

whitemajikman

05-20-2005, 05:01 PM

The Kilauea volcano, which has been erupting for the past twenty years, produces 2000 tons of SO2 each day, sometimes much more.
Annual production totals 730,000 tons.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/VolGasPollution.html

By contrast, the top SO2 producing power plant in the nation, the Bowen Facility in Georgia, produces 164,881 tons/year.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/documents/dirtiest_plants2.pdf

Kilauea also produces more than 700,000 tons of CO2 each year, as much as 132,000 SUV's would produce annually.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.html

The emissions from Kilaeua cause local pollution, especially when winds are calm and in directions which bring the fumes into Hilo or Kona, and local officials term these periods "VOG"(Volcanic/Smog).
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/VolGasPollution.html

The volcano's lava flows downhill and into the sea, and upon contact with seawater, produces an acidic gas via chemical reaction with sodium chloride in the water. The water vapor mixed with hydrochloric acid is made even more potent by the addition of fine particles of volcanic glass. Local officials call this phenomemon "LAZE"(lava/haze).
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Thumblinks/laze_page.html

Hawaii has the highest rates of asthma mortality and has had high asthma death rates for centuries.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9088297&dopt=Abstract

The eruption continues:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/kilauea/update/main.html

And you can see the volcano on a webcam which updates every 5 minutes:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/cam/index.htm

All in all, be happy you don't live near such a volcano.

While you think that you have somehow made a case ........regarding Hawaii........

Keep This in Mind........

For Every Volcano on land........there are roughly 300 below the ocean's surface on the seafloor....

Kilauea is nothing ........compared to those........

Also THEY are becoming active.....in fact Scientist's are baffled as too why......

WMM

jayreynolds

05-20-2005, 06:01 PM

While you think that you have somehow made a case regarding Hawaii Keep This in Mind For Every Volcano on land there are roughly 300 below the ocean's surface on the seafloor Kilauea is nothing compared to those.Also THEY are becoming active in fact Scientist's are baffled as too whyWMM
Doesn't surprise me, since earth is 2/3 covered with water, lol.

Most of those are rift systems, the magma freezes and gas gets absorbed too.
Nothing to worry about. In fact, Kilauea is just the tip of an entire undersea chain of volcanic mountains anyway. I really had no "case", just found it interesting.

Boomer Chick

05-20-2005, 08:25 PM

EXXON, dragging its collective sorry-butt ass.

Excerpts:

"As a long-term investor and fiduciary, I encourage ExxonMobil and its board to evaluate and report on the company's financial exposure from climate change," said Connecticut State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier. "The scientific community has told us that climate change is a fast-approaching reality, and there is a growing consensus in the business community that mandatory carbon constraints could come sooner rather than later. We want ExxonMobil to plan accordingly to protect the long-term value of the company and our investment."

"ExxonMobil shareholders need to know how the company they own is responding to challenges that will impact its bottom line and our environment," said Phil Angelides, California state treasurer and a board member of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS), the nation's largest and third largest public pension funds with about $311 billion of assets.

"Investors globally recognize the uncertain environment in which the companies we invest in operate, but we cannot afford to ignore both risks and the opportunities arising from climate change that impact the value of our investments," said Peter Scales, chief executive of the London Pensions Fund Authority. "ExxonMobil needs to join its peers in addressing these issues positively if they are to retain shareholder support."

"ExxonMobil could be misleading itself and investors by failing to recognize the liabilities of climate change," said North Carolina State Treasurer Richard Moore.

In just the past few months, Anadarko Petroleum, Apache, ChevronTexaco and several other leading U.S. oil and gas companies have agreed to a wide range of actions to reduce their climate risk exposure, including: measuring and disclosing greenhouse gas emissions and setting reduction targets; increasing investments in low- and no-carbon energy technologies, integrating climate risk and carbon costs into capital allocation decision making; and assigning boards direct responsibility to oversee climate change corporate strategies. The actions come in the wake of record-high voting support last year for shareholder resolutions seeking more climate risk disclosure from oil and gas companies.

"Most of the oil and gas companies are taking climate change much more seriously than they were just a year ago, but ExxonMobil is a big glaring exception," said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, an investor coalition that has helped coordinate the shareholder filings with the oil and gas companies. "While peers like Conoco Phillips and British Petroleum are slashing emissions and investing in alternative energy sources, ExxonMobil is in denial on the science and making little or no effort to prepare for carbon limits and the growing demand for cleaner energy sources."

http://www.csrwire.com/article.cgi/3967.html

***