Climate Change [Archive] - Debate Both Sides

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 04:07 PM

You realize I have to mention HAARP in this scenario. So let's get it over with. I chose Chossudovsky's assumptive piece to start with. I like how he says there's no proof, yet. Well, I think his latest treatise would say something different, don't you? Notice that this college professor uses Begich's and Bertell's work, even before their latest book, it seems.

It's not only greenhouse gas emissions: Washington's new world order weapons
have the ability to trigger climate change.

By Michel Chossudovsky - Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa and TFF associate, author of The Globalization of Poverty, second edition, Common Courage Press

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be
modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes.

HAARP IS A MASS DESTRUCTIVE WEAPON - NOT PART OF ANY NEGOTIATIONS

From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases.

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense objectives.

"WEATHER WARFARE"

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "US military scientists are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include
the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods."(2)

Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book "Between Two Ages" that:

"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised... Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm. "

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s." (3) These technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." (4)

A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for the US Air Force calls for: "US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications." From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. (5)

THE HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM - HAARP

The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma Alaska-jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy-is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere".

Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich-actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-describes HAARP as: "A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere (upper layer of the atmosphere) by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything-living and dead." (6)

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet." (7)

MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (8) Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.(9)

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental consequences: "It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature.

The military implications of combining these projects is alarming. The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer. (10)

In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses: "HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays. Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. (11).

More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic weapons" which US military researchers consider a "gentler and kinder warfare". (12)

WEAPONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points in the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilized through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war. The use of HAARP-if it were to be applied-could have potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate.

Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the World resulting in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems. It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of Defense's National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on "imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change" with data relayed from satellites. (13)

continued....

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 04:10 PM

POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS

According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction." (14).

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (15) Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines "environmental modification techniques" as referring to any technique for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes-the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (16) Why then did the UN-disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention as well as its own charter-decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programs?

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACT OF HAARP

In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj. Britt Theorin-Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17) The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament: "Considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to give evidence to the public hearing into the environmental and public risks [of&] the HAARP program." (18.)

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". (19) Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.

FULLY OPERATIONAL

While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation" or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy. Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the World.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address
the possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal weapons" on climate change.

NOTES

1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by an average of 5.2 percent to become effective
between 2008 and 2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at
http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html.

2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.

3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.

4. Ibid.

5. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final
Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ (emphasis added).

6. Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's
Pandora's Box, Earthpulse Press,
http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html. See also the
HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/).

7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).

8. Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.

9. Air University, op cit.

10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5
November, 1996,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm

11. Begich and Manning, op cit.

12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of
Electronic Defense, August 1993. (emphasis added). According
to Herskovitz, "electronic warfare" is defined by the US
Department of Defense as "military action involving the use
of electromagnetic energyƒ" The Journal of Electronic
Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has published a range
of articles on the application of electronic and
electromagnetic military technologies.

13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.

14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York,
1992. See complete text at
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html, (emphasis
added).

15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.

16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed,
States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21,
p. 27.

17. European Report, 7 February 1998.

18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99,
14 January 1999.

19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between
Environment and Defense, European Report, 3 February
1999.

Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, November, 2000.

All rights reserved.

áPermission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms contact the author at chossudovsky@videotron.ca, fax: 1-514-4256224.

Michel Chossudovsky
Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N6N5

Voice box: 1-613-562-5800, ext. 1415

Fax: 1-514-425-6224

E-Mail: chossudovsky@videotron.ca; (altern. E-mail: chossudovsky@sprint.ca)

>áááááááá On the Globalisation of Poverty and the Financial Crisis:

>áááááááá "Seattle and Beyond: Disarming the New World Order"

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/seattle.html

>áááááááá Global Poverty in the Late 20th Century

>áááááááá http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/chossu.htm

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/features/g7solution.html

> ááááááááhttp://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/eco/

>

http://heise.xlink.de/tp/english/special/eco/6099/1.html#anchor1

Recent articles on Yugoslavia at:áá
http://emperors-clothes.com/artbyauth.html#C

NATOÕs Reign of Terror in Kosovo http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/yugo_archive/
19990816mcpaper.htm

Overview of the War: http://www.transnational.org/features/Yuoverview.html

On the role of the KLA: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2743/1.html

Breakup of Yugoslavia: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/022.html

________________

The thesis is obvious. Weaponry and weather manipulation may be contributing to climate change.

Personally, I think that the sun has more to do with it than anything. I'll be posting on that thesis, also.

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 04:34 PM

BC seems to have originated this:

" First of all, spraying does not occur in all regions of the planet. Global dimming, therefore, in my view, can only be caused by one thing...... the sun. The sun has caused the polar icecaps to melt and although CO2 is contributory, the sun by far, is the main cause of the effect. That's just my opinion from reading. Methane, as well, due to the Arctic's and Antarctic's melting and exposing mud pits and other sources of methane production, poses another threat to the gaseous equation in terms of radiative potentials and the rising of the atmospheric temperature."

==========

BC,

The Sun supplies most of the energy on the surface of the Earth. The Sun's energy is rather constant, except for the small 11 year cycle variation and some sun spots.

The problem is the energy absorption of the Earth's atmosphere, changing the reflectivity of the land masses, etc. Plus, acids damaging the CO-2 absorption.

Most important of all, the energy absorbing gases are higher in concentration over the poles and this effect leads to the polar melt issue. It comes from the Sun's ionizing radiation making ions that drift by the Earth's magnefic field.

The concentrations of pollutants is not a constant, by elevation, or by latitude. Warmer air means wetter atmosphere and hydrogen getting higher into the atmosphere--this is associated with UV-b effects. While the UV-b effects at the poles come from both ozone depletion and H generation.

All the global warming effects are due to these pollutants in the air, many from man and some being forced out of nature by the positive feedback effects of man's contributions to heat absorbing gases in the air.

I don't think you can rightly say the Sun doing its normal thing is responsible for the polar ice melt. The correct explanation lies in the higher concentrations of the heat absorbing aerosols and gases at the pole.

That is perhaps the most important issue to grasp for getting to the bottom of the pole melt problems.

IMHO,
is

OK, Jim (right?) I hear you. And I accept what you say. However, I have come across ice core research that proves that this exact situation happened before in pre-history including the high levels of CO2. Volcanism probably played into that one. And guess what? Volcanism will probably play a role in this one, too. And I do believe that the sun is not constant and if our scientists knew about the sun's heating up or discharging an unusual amount of energy, do you think they'd tell us? Another theory that seems plausible is considering all the other planets in the solar system heating up and behaving unusually which points to the increased energy of the sun.....seems to be a plausible explanation as well. I will list those links over in the climate change thread. It would be easier for me to continue this thread we're on, regarding climate change, over at the Climate Change thread I started. Perhaps the situation is bigger than you think, solar system wide, rather than planetary alone. You might also consider the changing magnetic pole situation in all of this as well. The earth's magnetism has a role to play, does it not? And another branching theory regards extra solar system bodies entering the gravitational fields and affecting the sun's energy particulates AND the magnetic grids which in turn is governed by the earth's inner core. The earth's inner core could certainly be influenced by both the sun's particulate energy AND gravitational forces from other bodies.

I think exploring all relative theories is in order.

Continue on the Climate Change thread?

Thanks!

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 05:29 PM

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/corelab/images/broda_keigwin.pdf

http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/corelab/images/paleo_Keigwin.pdf

http://oceanusmag.whoi.edu/v40n2/ostermann.html

The Little Ice Age and the Sargasso Sea

http://oceanusmag.whoi.edu/v39n2/keigwin.html

Generally the combined theses for these readings point to great fluctuations in temperature, both sea and atmospheric, over long and shorter geological time spans.

Excerpt:

When temperatures were calculated from oxygen isotope results on G. ruber from the box core, and when data were averaged over 50 year intervals, I found a consistent pattern of sea surface temperature change (see figure at right). The core-top data indicate temperatures of nearly 23 degrees, very close to the average temperature at Station S over the past 50 years. However, during the Little Ice Age of about 300 years ago sea surface temperatures were at least a full degree lower than today, and there was an earlier cool event centered on 1,700 years ago. Events warmer than today occurred about 500 and 1,000 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, and it was even warmer than that prior to about 2,500 years ago.

These results are exciting for a few reasons. First, events as young and as brief as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have never before been resolved in deep sea sediments from the open ocean. Because the Sargasso Sea has a rather uniform temperature and salinity distribution near the surface, it seems that these events must have had widespread climatic significance. The Sargasso Sea data indicate that the Medieval Warm Period may have actually been two events separated by 500 years, perhaps explaining why its timing and extent have been so controversial. Second, it is evident that the climate system has been warming for a few hundred years, and that it warmed even more from 1,700 years ago to 1,000 years ago. There is considerable discussion in the scientific literature and the popular press about the cause of warming during the present century. Warming of about half a degree this century has been attributed to the human-induced "greenhouse effect." Although this is not universally accepted, it is widely accepted that eventually changes to Earth's atmosphere will cause climate warming. The message from the Bermuda Rise is that human-induced warming may be occurring at the same time as natural warming—not an ideal situation. Finally, building on the studies of physical oceanographers and climatologists, marine geologists and paleoclimatologists may use the North Atlantic Oscillation as a model for understanding North Atlantic climate change on longer, century and millennial time scales.

________________

Certainly worth considering all of these studies in the larger planetary picture!

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 06:05 PM

Live Online Discussion: "The Irony of Climate"
Thursday, February 24, 2005, 2:00 PM EST

Join Worldwatch Senior Researcher Brian Halweil for an online discussion on February 24, 2005 at 2:00 PM EST. Brian will talk about his article "The Irony of Climate," a feature in the forthcoming March/April issue of World Watch magazine that explores the links between climate change and agriculture shifts. "Farming may be the human endeavor most dependent on a stable climate--and the industry that will struggle most to cope with more erratic weather, severe storms, and shifts in growing season lengths," Halweil writes.

Submit your questions now at http://www.worldwatch.org/live/discussion/103/ and return on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 2:00 PM EST for the discussion.

Problems Without Passports: Achieving Security in an Interconnected World
Worldwatch Institute and GLOBE USA invite you to a discussion on the timely issue of global security and to celebrate the release of State of the World 2005.

Wednesday, February 9, 2005
Cannon House Building
Corner of Independence Ave. & New Jersey Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20515

BRIEFING: 3:00-4:30 PM, Cannon Caucus Room 345

RECEPTION/STATE OF THE WORLD 2005 BOOK PARTY: 4:30-6:30 PM, Cannon Room 121

PROGRAM

Welcome: Christopher Flavin, President, Worldwatch Institute
Will Ferretti, Executive Director, GLOBE USA
Keynote Remarks: Congressman James Leach (R-Iowa)
Panel Discussion: Michael Renner, Worldwatch Institute
Richard Cincotta, Population Action International
Paul Walker, Global Green USA
Hilary French, Worldwatch Institute
Closing Remarks: Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)

Books will be available for all guests, and State of the World 2005 authors will be on hand to discuss their findings.

Download a faxable RSVP form for this event at www.worldwatch.org/press/prerelease/sow05-hill-fax.pdf

For more information, please contact: Courtney Berner 202.452.1992 ext 540,

:shock:

cberner@worldwatch.org

Support the Institute Worldwatch Publications

Join the Worldwatch Institute and help inspire a revolution in global thinking on how we live on planet earth. Benefits of membership include free publications and a free subscription to World Watch magazine. Donate Now!

From our flagship State of the World and Vital Signs publications to the interactive Signposts CD-ROM, Worldwatch publications provide in-depth data and analysis on a broad range of environmental and social topics. Browse our publications.

Worldwatch Institute - 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Tel 202.452.1999 - Fax 202.296.7365 - www.worldwatch.org

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 08:58 PM

The Sun
Since at least the late 1970s, the Sun’s overall radiation emissions (as measured by increasingly sophisticated satellites) have increased by 0.5% per decade, which one NASA scientist said “could cause significant climate change” if such effects were to continue over several decades. [14] Another NASA scientist found that between 1901 and 2000, the Sun’s magnetic field has increased in strength by 230 percent. [15] In 1999, a third NASA experimenter observed high increases in the amount of helium and heavier charged particles released during solar events, showing that a real change is occurring in the solar wind component of the Sun’s energetic output, neatly paralleling the other observed changes.. [16]

Prior to 2003, the two strongest solar flares on record were rated at a previously unheard-of X20, and occurred in 1989 and 2001. Then, in November 2003 a flare occurred that some estimate to be at least 200% more powerful than any ever seen before, at a whopping X40 … or higher.[17] As is expected in such events, a coronal mass ejection soon followed – releasing a huge expanding bubble of billions of tons of electrified gas into the solar system. These and other events in late 2003 caused one NASA scientist to say that the Sun is now more active than in living memory, and “there has been nothing like this before.” [18]

Figure 5 - Largest, Brightest-Ever X40 Solar Flare, 11.5.03, (L) and Subsequent CME (R). (NASA-ESA)

Despite all of the above evidence, the case for a fundamental solar change was never truly complete until late last year, with a study that coincidentally emerged just three days before this massive solar explosion occurred. Ilya Usoskin, a mainstream geophysicist, used polar ice core samples to prove that the Sun has been more active since the 1940s than in the previous 1,150 years combined. [19] The Sun’s subsequent fury, just days later, only served to underline and emphasize the point. Considering that the Sun contains fully 99.86 percent of the mass of the solar system, making the planets look like grains of sand by comparison, these continuing changes will undoubtedly affect everything within the Sun’s formidable magnetic, radiative and gravitational grasp…

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-27-2004/InterplanetaryDayAfter-Part2.htm

Sources:

“Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Wilson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York.”

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend that can Change Climate. March 20, 2003. URL: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

[15] “…according to Michael Lockwood and colleagues at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England… Analyzing instrument measurements taken since 1868, they conclude that the sun's exterior magnetic field has increased by 230 percent since 1901 and by 40 percent since 1964.”

Suplee, Curt. Sun Studies May Shed Light on Global Warming. Washington Post, Monday, Oct. 9, 2000, pg. A13. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35885-2000Oct8.html

[16] “A team of researchers led by George Gloeckler, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, published a paper in the Jan. 15, 1999 issue of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) about the unusual composition of the May 2-3 (1998) coronal mass ejection (CME) – a bubble of gas and magnetic field lines that the sun ejects over the course of several hours… Coronal mass ejections carry plasma, or ionized gas, away from the sun at speeds approaching 2,000 kilometers per second…

“We were completely surprised by the highly unusual and unexpected composition in this CME,” Gloeckler says. His team observed, for example, that the density of 4He+ [a form of charged helium] was almost as high as the density of 4He++ for several hours. “Such large 4He+/4He++ratios, persisting for hours, have never been observed in the solar wind before,” they write. They also observed high increases of helium and heavier ions in the CME plasma. The unusual composition of the CME lasted an exceptionally long time, they write… “This is certainly not an average solar wind but an anomalous situation,” Gloeckler says. “Yet such anomalous findings often lead to deeper understandings of physical processes.”

Bartlett, Kristina. ACEing the sun. American Geophysical Union / Geotimes News Notes, April 1999. URL: http://www.geotimes.org/apr99/newsnotes.html

[17] “Craig DeForest, a solar physicist at the Southwest Research Institute, said… “I’d take a stand and say it appears to be about X40 based on extrapolation of the X-ray flux into the saturated period… “That estimate may even be conservative,” he said.”

Britt, Robert Roy. Solar super-flare amazes scientists. Space.com / MSNBC.com, Nov. 6, 2003. URL: http://www.msnbc.com/news/984388.asp?cp1=1

[18] Dr Paal Brekke, deputy project scientist for the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Sun-monitoring satellite, told BBC News Online… "I think the last week will go into the history books as one of the most dramatic solar activity periods we have seen in modern times… As far as I know there has been nothing like this before."”

Whitehouse, David Ph.D. What is Happening to the Sun? BBC News Online, Tuesday, November 4, 2003. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3238961.stm

[19] “Ilya Usoskin, a geophysicist who worked with colleagues from the University of Oulu in Finland and the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, has found that there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than for the past 1150 years.

Sunspot observations stretch back to the early 17th century, when the telescope was invented. To extend the data farther back in time, Usoskin's team used a physical model to calculate past sunspot numbers from levels of a radioactive isotope preserved in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica…

Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford…told New Scientist that when he saw the data converted to sunspot numbers he thought, "why the hell didn't I do this?" It makes the conclusion very stark, he says. "We are living with a very unusual sun at the moment."

Hogan, Jenny. Sun More Active than for a Millennium. New Scientist, November 2, 2003. URL: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321

:shock:

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 04:50 AM

gaiacomm

02-04-2005, 07:20 AM

Tesla Rules!

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 09:31 AM

Yes, G, Tesla technology could be used to protect the earth from what I've read, but who owns the technology and how will they use it ? is the question.

I'll read that Danish article, Jay.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6970

Alarm bells ring louder over climate change
15:04 04 February 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Jenny Hogan, Exeter
The risks of global warming are "more serious than previously thought", concluded a major international climate conference on Thursday.

"Major investment is needed now in both mitigation and adaptation," stresses the preliminary report, summarising results presented at the conference, called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, in Exeter, UK.

The impacts of global warming discussed at the meeting sounded like a roll call of disasters. Topics ranged from the collapse of ice sheets in Antarctica to the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice caps; from droughts in Africa to floods in Japan. And fears were also raised over the rapidly changing current-patterns in acidifying ocean .

But the scientists shied away from stating that such climate change was "dangerous". "That's a value judgement to be made by policy makers," said Bert Metz, from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and one of the report's authors.

To help policy makers decide where to draw the danger line, the report echoed some researchers' calls to establish "critical thresholds that we should aim not to cross".

For example, the report drew attention to the results of Jason Lowe, from the Hadley Centre in Exeter. He says that local warming of more than 2.7°C, associated with global warming of only 1.5°C, could trigger Greenland's ice sheet to start contracting.

Dramatic cuts
Collating results from published studies indicated that damage increases as the world warms by between 1°C and 3°C, while serious risk of large scale damage becomes likely above 3°C, the report said. This lends some support to the European Union's target of keeping global warming to under 2°C by 2050. Other presentations at the meeting suggested that only with dramatic emissions cuts can such a goal be achieved.

The report also warned that more research was needed into the effects climate change could have on the frequency of extreme natural events. It cited the European heat wave of 2003 - during which thousands of people died - as an example of an extreme event made more likely by global warming.

The last substantial review of climate change was conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001. But now "there is greater clarity and reduced uncertainty about the impacts of climate change", says the new report.

The meeting was opened by Margaret Beckett, the UK's Secretary of State for the Environment, who said on Thursday: "I think this conference will be seen as a turning point in the perception of climate change. It underlines the need for the international community to take urgent action to combat climate change."

Related Articles
Climatologists pursue greenhouse gas danger levels
01 February 2005
Coral reefs create clouds to control the climate
02 February 2005
A most precious commodity
08 January 2005
Weblinks
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change symposium, Exeter
Summary symposium report (pdf)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

__________________________________

Regarding G's comment on Tesla, I decided to find some documentation on HAARP plans to find something in regard to environmental awareness. This is what I found and it's probably not the newest info:

Air Force Navy Document on HAARP programs

http://www.viewzone.com/haarp.exec.html

I could only find this paragraph in relation to the program's attention to
environmental issues:

4.3. HF Heater Location

One of the major issues to be addressed under the program is the
generation of ELF waves in the ionosphere by HF heating. This
requires locating the heater where there are strong atmospheric
currents, either at an equatorial location or at a high latitude
(auroral) location. Additional factors to be considered in
locating the heater include other technical (research) needs and
requirements, environmental issues, future expansion
capabilities (real estate), infrastructure, and considerations
of the availability and location of diagnostics. The location of
the new HF heating facility is planned for Alaska, relatively
near to a new incoherent scatter facility, already planned for
the Poker Flat rocket range under a separate DOD program. In
addition, it is desirable that the HF heater be located to
permit rocket probe instrumentation to be flown into the heated
region of the ionosphere. The exact location in Alaska for the
proposed new HF heating facility has not yet been determined.

___________________________________

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 09:32 AM

For those of you interested in the science involved in the new technologies:

Excellent site for research and physics papers: (each line is a paper, active links on site)

http://digilander.libero.it/fuzzylogics/faiallo.htm

Radio wave propagation in the corona and the interplanetary medium.pdf
Enhanced MUF propagation of HF radio waves in the auroral zone .pdf
Ionosphere Plasma Holes--Modeling and Diagnostic.pdf
Modelling of transequatorial propagation of HF radio waves.pdf
Ambiguity of the recnonstruction of plasma requency profiles from a given height-Frequency
characteristics and their discernibility for oblique propagation of HF radio waves in an isotropic ionosphere.pdf
A new model of the oceanic evaporation duct.pdf
Absorption of solar radiation by stratocumulus clouds- aircraft measurements and theoretical calculations.pdf
Excitation of Alfvén waves and vortices in the ionospheric Alfvén resonator by modulated powerful radio waves.pdf
Propagation modes of low- and very-low-latitude whistlers.pdf
The investigation of long-distance HF propagation on the basis of a chirp sounder.pdf
Multiple scattering effects under vertical sounding of equatorial ionosphere.pdf
Aspect angle dependence of HF enhanced incoherent backscatter.pdf
EISCAT data base for ionospheric modelling: F-region and topside ionosphere.pdf

PROPAGAZIONE - ATTIVITA SOLARE

The effect of solar UV irradiance variations on the Earth's atmosphere.pdf
Catalogue of coronal mass ejections and associated phenomena.pdf
Shock waves in the solar corona and their radio emission.pdf
Radio astronomical studies of solar activity and its effects on the solar corona and the heliosphere.pdf
Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate.pdf
Long-term trends in the lower ionosphere .pdf

PROPAGAZIONE - VLF

VLF phase and amplitude: daytime ionospheric parameters.pdf
ELF and VLF radio waves .pdf
Sounding the magnetosphere by signal from VLF radio transmitters.pdf
ELF/VLF radio signals caused by ionospheric demodulation of MF/HF radio transmitter signals.pdf
Solar cycle changes in daytime VLF subionospheric attenuation.pdf
The effect of a transverse irregularity on the electromagnetic fields excited by VLF transmitters at ionospheric heights in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide near the terminator.pdf
The generation of ELF and VLF radio waves in the ionosphere using powerful radio transmitters.pdf

PROPAGAZIONE - E-SPORADICO

Global sounding of sporadic E layers by the GPS-MET radio occultation experiment.pdf
Sporadic-E occurrence statistics over Indian subcontinent.pdf
Dependence of sporadic-E layer and lower thermosphere dynamics on solar activity.pdf
Using the combined resources of amateur radio observations and ionosonde data in the study of temperate zone sporadic-E.pdf
Es layer and dynamics of neutral atmosphere during the periods of geomagnetic disturbances.pdf
The effect of geomagnetic activity on the dynamics of the upper mesosphere-lower thermosphere and on parameters of the E-layer.pdf

PROPAGAZIONE - VARIE

Disturbances in LF radio signals during the Umbria-Marche (Italy) seismic sequence in 1997–1998 .pdf
The formation of ionosphere-magnetosphere ducts over the seismic zone.pdf
Effect of Earthquakes on Lower Ionosphere as Found by Subionospheric VLF Propagation .pdf
Dynamical coupling of the lower and middle atmosphere: historical background to current research.pdf
A case study of subrefractive conditions at Wallops Island, Virginia.pdf
A simple theoretical model for computing omega navigation errors near Antarctica.pdf
Ionospheric Stimulation By High Power Radio Waves.pdf
Shortwave feedbacks and El Nino-Southern Oscillation- forced ocean and coupled ocean-atmosphere experiments.pdf
The development of small-scale irregularities in the ionosphere disturbed by powerful oblique HF radio waves.pdf
Time-critical problem-solving with cached knowledge- a case study in shortwave radio resource allocation.pdf
Observation of HF radio emission bursts of magnetosphere origin at mid latitudes.pdf
The effects of receiver location in two-station experimental ionospheric tomography.pdf

RADIO E SOCIETA'

A geographical analysis of America's ethnic radio programming.pdf
Customized internet radio.pdf
The radio spectrum and the organization of the future: Recapturing radio for new working patterns and lifestyles.pdf
Planning point-to-multipoint rural radio access networks using expert systems.pdf
The communications spectrum: frequency allocations and auctions.pdf
The future of wireless communications beyond the third generation.pdf

RADIOTECNICA

Digital Signal Processing radios: trends, benefits and challenges.pdf
Development of an FM data receiver for various message output devices.pdf

LIBRI

Book Review - Radio propagation and smart antennas for wireless communications.pdf
Book Review - Social uses and radio practices: the use of participatory radio by ethnic minorities in Mexico.pdf

www.radioascolto.org

BC

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 05:20 PM

Hey, Bummerchick,
This woman needs help more than people need information about tesla stuff.
It sounds like things are 'coming to a head' around Carolyn.
Check her out. Another sad piece of work being influenced by you know who to do who knows what. This type person needs to stay offline and make baskets or something..........
http://www.noexoticwarfarezone.com/thedaytheearthstoodstill.htm

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 06:36 PM

On the question of solar variability and global temperatures, you really have to read the Danes.
http://www.dmi.dk/eng/index/research_and_development/danish_climate_centre.htm
I have aspecial connection with the Danish people, as I lived on St. Croix, a former Danish colony. My friend Kai Lawaetz, 94, just passed away a few weeks ago.
http://www.gotostcroix.com/lawaetz/

Kai certainly lived a beautiful life! What a gorgeous place in which to create and commune with nature. How special ! What a lovely place, St. Croix in the Virgin Islands.

Where you stationed there or working there in some capacity?

The Danish site had less information on it than our Woods Hole site, but interesting. I was curious to read some articles, but they didn't have any. Nice to know they're involved with other groups in all areas of climate research.

THANKS, JAY!!!!

bc :D

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 07:37 PM

jayreynolds

02-05-2005, 06:19 AM

Where you stationed there or working there in some capacity?
I see you haven't read my website yet.
I'm rather discouraged by that.
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/

For a literature teacher, your retention and comprehension skills seem weak.
I already wrote you that I've never been in the military.
BTw, what about those questions I asked?

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 10:49 AM

I see you haven't read my website yet.
I'm rather discouraged by that.
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/

For a literature teacher, your retention and comprehension skills seem weak.
I already wrote you that I've never been in the military.
BTw, what about those questions I asked?

Ouch! I left the question open with "OR" and you had said you were affiliated with a Navy project, so EXCUUUUuuuUUUUse ME!!!

I just visited your site and e-mailed you..... are you happy now? :rolleyes: I will be reading more on your site through time.

What questions? I will check back.

Later................

BC

halva

02-08-2005, 03:05 PM

Bush's global-warming death sentence

By MARY SHAW

ON FEB. 16, the international Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming will take effect with no support from the Bush administration. This should be an embarrassment to all Americans.

Environmental lawyer and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has described George W. Bush as the worst environmental president in U.S. history. During Bush's first term, his administration initiated more than 200 rollbacks of environmental laws.

These moves serve to benefit big corporations, which are no longer inconvenienced by having to comply with strict pollution standards. This kind of environmental irresponsibility is contributing to global warming that, if allowed to continue unchecked, could pose a serious threat to human life around the world.

Despite the assertions of diehard naysayers, hard data now confirms that climate change is dramatic, real and driven by fossil fuels. Weather patterns are increasingly unstable, deep oceans warming, glaciers melting, drought and famine proliferating, sea levels rising and the timing of the seasons themselves is altered.

Increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have resulted in a one-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature over the last century. That may not seem like much, but the process is speeding up in a big way, and could soon careen out of control if measures are not taken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the average global temperature will rise three to 10 degrees Fahrenheit in this century. Other studies suggest an even greater warming effect much sooner. The consequences could be cataclysmic.

Already, climate change is affecting the lives and livelihoods of some of the world's most vulnerable people, threatening millennia-old cultures and literally stealing the ground beneath people's feet.

The Inuit people near the Arctic Circle are seeing deformed fish, depleted caribou herds, dying forests, starving seals and emaciated polar bears. Recently, the Inuit began battling northward-migrating mosquitoes and other infectious- disease-carrying insects, which they had never encountered.

As sea ice melts, rising water is washing away coastal villages. Half a world away, islands in the South Pacific are being submerged by rising sea levels caused by global warming. President Leo Falcam of the island nation of Tuvalu, near New Zealand, described climate change as "a form of slow death."

Even farther inland, the consequences are bleak, as global warming will have a considerable effect on food production. The U.N. climate panel predicts that a half-degree temperature increase would cause a drop of 20 to 40 percent in rice yields in Southeast Asia, and would cut India's wheat yield by up to 20 percent.

LOOKING FORWARD, it gets even worse and hits closer to home. The U.N. Environmental Program projects that later this century, global warming will reduce several of the world's key crops, like corn grown in the midwestern U.S., by some 30 percent.

Adding to this threat is the fact that world food consumption has, for the first time in history, outpaced food production for four consecutive years, according to the Earth Policy Institute. In other words, folks, already there is not enough food to go around.

Flooding and erosion presents a serious hardship in affected areas, but the airborne diseases and malnutrition caused by global warming are matters of life and death. Summing up the situation, the British medical journal The Lancet called indifference to climate change "a form of bio-political terrorism."

The U.S. - with about 5 percent of the world's population - remains the world's chief polluter, generating 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

Humanity must not be made to suffer the consequences of corporate cronyism. The Bush administration, and our state officials, too, must make this issue a priority and take immediate measures to control pollution and fight global warming. We owe that much to our future generations - and to the world.

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

jayreynolds

02-09-2005, 05:36 AM

Bush's global-warming death sentence

By MARY SHAW

The Inuit people near the Arctic Circle are seeing deformed fish, depleted caribou herds, dying forests, starving seals and emaciated polar bears. Recently, the Inuit began battling northward-migrating mosquitoes and other infectious- disease-carrying insects, which they had never encountered.--

Bullshit, Wayne. how in hell could "global warming" cause deformed fish?

The idea that the Inuit haven't ever encountered mosquitoes would get you a good laugh in Alaska. The mosquito problem in summertime there is severe, as bad a s anywhere in the world. The Inuit people even have legends about how they come in the summertime:
http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues00/Co09092000/CO_09092000_Mosquitoes.htm

The bottom line is that your article is bogus, written by some hack that can't do proper research, has never been to the arctic, and never bothered to ask an Inuit any questions about mosquitoes.

Wayne, you used to sign each post here with a warning against scaremongering.
your scruples have changed quite a bit.

halva

02-09-2005, 06:11 AM

Just a couple of news items so that we can say to Raynolds:
GO TO RUSSSIA!!!

Blair told to listen to climate change sceptics
Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:25 PM GMT
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Douglas Busvine

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair must listen to sceptics in the climate change debate to stop the Kyoto Protocol harming the world economy, a top Russian official has said.

"Have there been any international agreements to limit economic growth and development before Kyoto? There were two: Communism and Nazism," Andrei Illarionov, an aide to President Vladimir Putin, told a Moscow news conference on Tuesday.

Illarionov urged Blair to reject the arguments being put forward by ecological fundamentalists who he said were seeking to hijack the agenda of this year's Group of Eight (G8) summit in Britain.

"For a country which gave the world freedom of speech, it is crucial that its leaders find the strength to free themselves from ... a very dangerous totalitarian sect," Illarionov said.

Despite Russia's decision last year to sign up to Kyoto, Illarionov remains opposed to the U.N.-sponsored pact to curb emissions of "greenhouse" gases like carbon dioxide, blamed by some scientists for global warming.

Putin stripped Illarionov of his post as Russia's G8 summit "sherpa" late last year, but the outspoken economist remains a senior adviser to the Kremlin chief.

Illarionov said he was "deeply grateful" to Putin for relieving him of responsibility for Kyoto, which he said would punish developing nations in an attempt to avert an illusory environmental catastrophe.

Russia's ratification of Kyoto means the 141-nation pact can enter into force next week, despite a boycott by the United States, the world's largest polluter.

Kyoto's backers say people must burn fewer fossil fuels that give off heat-trapping gases like CO2, or else more storms, droughts and floods will result. Melting polar ice caps would force up sea levels, while rapid climate change could ruin farmers and endanger thousands of plant and animal species.

SHUT OUT

Illarionov accused the Environment Ministry of intervening to prevent him attending a debate on climate change at last month's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

He also criticised a seminar in Exeter, southwest England, in January where the British chairman tried and failed to push through a resolution defining crisis levels for rising temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

"The problem is that the so-called scientific basis ... has been proposed by the British government and the European Union for approval by the G8 in order to impose new limits on CO2 emissions," Illarionov said.

The G8 comprises the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia.

"When the G8 leaders meet in Scotland in July, they won't discuss the science. They will say that the scientific community has concluded that global warming is happening and immediate action is needed. But this has no scientific basis."

Illarionov sought in a slide show to demonstrate that a rise in global temperatures in recent decades was part of the ups and downs of climate cycles dating back to the pre-industrial age.

Attempts to prove the contrary were based on faulty readings of data or selective use of evidence that ice caps and glaciers were melting faster than ever before, he contended.

"This is not science. It's propaganda," Illarionov said. "And the aggression shown towards those who do not share these views shows they totally lack any foundation."

Very Raynoldian idea content here!!!)

09 February 2005 13:15
Kremlin aide blasts UK role in "totalitarian" Kyoto "sect"

Russian presidential [economic] advisor Andrey Illarionov today called the statement by British scientists on global warming "a falsification".

Great Britain is using this information, he said at a news conference, in order to raise the issue of global warming at the G-8 summit which is to be held in the summer. Illarionov is convinced this is a political decision.

The presidential aide said that at a seminar on global warming which ended a few days ago in Exeter British scientists claimed that two degrees was a critical level for climate change. If we were to accept this, we would have to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide by 50-60 per cent on the 1990 level.

For Russia and former Soviet republics, this would mean reducing emissions by over 30 per cent in the near future and by 90 per cent by 2050. "To achieve this, economic activity in Russia would have to be cut by 70-80 per cent, and GDP (in Russia and former Soviet republics) would have to be cut by half or two thirds by 2050," Illarionov said.

["The G-8 economic forum in Davos fell victim to censorship" by Great Britain, which "influenced the drawing up of the programme for the conference on climate change", ITAR-TASS, in a report at1034 gmt, quoted Illarionov as saying at the news conference today.

"The organizers of the current forum in Davos invited me to take part in a number of sessions, but on 5 January, after long correspondence and a number of personal meetings, I received a letter saying it would not be possible for me to take part in the session on climate change," Illarionov said. He said "the organizers of the forum explained this, saying that Great Britain was part of the G-8 and that it was not its plan to organize discussion of this topic".

In a further report at 1208 gmt, ITAR-TASS quoted him calling the Kyoto Protocol "a sect ideology which is being imposed on the world using totalitarian methods" and expressing the fear that this "ideology" will have more and more influence" in the next few years. The protocol "has nothing to do with ecology", he said.

He also said that "he had not succeeded in pushing through decisions relating to the Kyoto Protocol which coincide with Russia's interests ".]

Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow
BBC Monitoring

jayreynolds

02-09-2005, 07:01 AM

For Russia and former Soviet republics, this would mean reducing emissions by over 30 per cent in the near future and by 90 per cent by 2050. "To achieve this, economic activity in Russia would have to be cut by 70-80 per cent, and GDP (in Russia and former Soviet republics) would have to be cut by half or two thirds by 2050," Illarionov said.

Do you really think that Russia has any intention of living up to this, if they sign it, Wayne?

The next question would be to ask how a 5% reduction in CO2 production would be expected to have any effect on "global warming"?

jayreynolds

02-10-2005, 06:17 AM

Boomer Chick

02-10-2005, 07:52 AM

Jay,

Thanks for that link! It's just jammed packed with top notch information!

I especially appreciated your solar links as support for my general hunch that the sun should be the main factor in overall increases in global warmth.

What kind of search system do you use? You certainly have it down!

Here's the solar page for those who doubt the solar aspect of the equation:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/solar.htm

AWESOME! NOT THAT I LIKE THE TRUTH, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NECESSARY FOR ANY ADAPTATION TO OCCUR!

Will be commenting on this as I read more articles!

BC :D

jayreynolds

02-12-2005, 07:53 AM

What kind of search system do you use? You certainly have it down!

Since the Agency gives me their worn-out-hand-me-down Crays, I have the equivalent of sevral googles. I am the most powerful debunker in the universe!

Seriously, I've followed Doug Hoyt's site since his erols.com site back in 1997.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 03:23 AM

Getting back to the science on HF or hydrogen fluoride's catalytic effect making its GWP quite high.

Review:

We have all learned that HF is a lite gas with a MW of only 20, this compared to air at MW of 30.
So, we know that HF will float on top of the air in the environment and rise to heights where it is highly affected by UV radiation from the sun. Here the UV breaks the hydrogen bond to the fluorine because the hydrogen has a high capture of UV energy.

Then the extremely electronegative free fluorine atom tends to seek and bond with the next atom around, which is generally oxygen or nitrogen. So, the Sun's UV cooking of the HF high in the sky radiologically makes OFx and NFx compounds, which are heavier than air and sink back into the lower altitudes.

Here the OFx and NFx compounds are not reactive toward much except the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. Reason being is that oxygen binds the atoms of hydrogen in water much more tightly than carbon bonds hydrogen, thus the OFx and NFx reactions only happen with H-C's. When one of these fluorine compounds gets near a hydrocarbon the affinity of fluorine toward hydrogen atoms in the hydrocarbon takes over and it pulls the hydrogen out of the chain or ring of the hydrocarbon. This forces it to rearrange itself into a simpler shorter hydro-carbon molecule. The hydrogen the fluorine pulled loose goes into HF and then rises back up high into the sky to start the process again. A little bit of fluorine or HF goes a long long way in the making of lite H-C compounds, hence the high GWP associated with HF.

It is this HF catalytic pump effect of generating these lite hydro-carbons that fills the skies with hyrocarbons that float on the atmosphere and which have the high IR absorption spectra from their multiple atom H-C strings.

The effect only occurs due to the synergism of both high emissions of HF from industry and natural sources and due to the very high consumption of hydrocarbon fuels that burn with inefficient processes that drive the entire process. For this reason, in history this is the first time this type of global warming event has happened. And it is the dominate effect in setting up the global warming gas blanket high above the Earth's Surface.

I found this effect way back in the middle 1980's while looking at the Star Wars LASER effects on the atmosphere, the mechanism of the ozone hole, and the mechanism for smog generation. Observations around Oak Ridge due to its high emissions of HF were showing unusual effects on temperatures and with close inspection of the processes I became the first to define the dominate global warming equation and the unusual recycle boundary conditions.

The discovery of this process lead directly to the issues of designing chemtrail methods to pull the HF out of the skies, since it was the easiest to get to with combinational chemistry with metals and via absorption into water molecules. Generation 1 and Generation 2 chemtrail technics are all my invention to stop the formation of the IR blanket gases. HAARP was my idea to deal with the IR gases already high in skies by heating them in such a way as to set up a wave propagation to push some of these gases into space. It was a retro-active approach to lessen the problems.

So, Halva, pass that around to persons like Chem11 and let them have a look---I am sure if there is a level of chemical savy there --- it will click as to the importance of my prime factor in global warming. This leading to chemtrails and to HAARP---of which, I provided the name.

Normally this reaction process happens at high altitudes, but in the case of the K-25 plant disassembly and losses of HF, it also occured due to the same process at lower altitudes and lead to much high temperature air in Oak Ridge in this period and extremely violent storms associated to the effect.

This is why fluoride emissions need to be carefully regulated and the effect made public.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 06:26 AM

halva

02-16-2005, 06:54 PM

Bump.

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 01:13 PM

I don't expect "believers" to read any of this, but if they want to see what they will eventually have to confront, they had better study it and follow it wherever it may lead, as if their lives depended on it.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/climate-change.htm

Read some more on the link today! The guy's got a great mind! Love how he attacks the ICPP or is it the IPCC? LOL!

Anyway, he does a great job and overall I would include his reasoning in my own considerations which tend to SLOW the whole GW process down... makes good sense. HOWEVER, it's still wise to do all we can to clean up the fossil fuel crap and provide a balance of carbon sinks and oxygen creating forest reserves of all kinds. Couldn't hurt. I especially liked his attention to the humidity factor.... was just thinking about that as well. Very interesting!

Take care..... :D

BC

jayreynolds

02-17-2005, 06:10 PM

Bump.
Stumped?

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 06:10 PM

I owe Jay a semi-apology. He is right in a way regarding the Senate. But I was right, too, regarding the protocol. It was never given to the Senate.

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE POLITICAL CHALLENGES

Remarks of Eileen Claussen
President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Stanford University Sustainability Days Conference

October 15, 2004

Thank you Jim for that very kind introduction. Let me begin by thanking the organizers of this conference. As most of you did, I watched the presidential debates, and I want to tell you how pleased I am that you did not install any blinking-light system on this podium that might force me to babble on and keep repeating myself to fill my allotted time.

I am going to talk about the politics of climate change—and, more specifically, about the continuing political struggle over this issue. But I also want to suggest a way to begin to resolve this struggle by taking a fresh look and by framing an agenda that can attract broad support.

But first the struggle itself. At the core, I believe it is a struggle between the old and the new, between those who want to put off taking action for as long as possible and those who believe we need to act decisively - now. It is, in essence, a struggle between the past and the future.

But unlike others of this kind, I believe the climate struggle is unique because the stakes are enormously high. Here we are talking about what kind of world we leave for future generations, and whether we can avoid environmental impacts that could potentially be catastrophic. It is a struggle in which we must succeed, and to do so we face the political challenge of finding solutions that can receive the backing of many of the people who are currently on the side of the past.

As I see it, the opponents of action on climate change fall into two camps. In one camp are the ideologues. These are people with a knee-jerk negative reaction to any kind of environmental regulation—or, for that matter, any kind of government regulation. They are also people who never met an international treaty or institution that they felt was worthy of U.S. support – apart, perhaps, from the International House of Pancakes. Getting this group to support U.S. action on climate change and/or U.S. participation in any kind of national or global response to this issue is, in short, a lost cause.

More promising are those in the other camp of climate holdouts – the people who perceive that their economic or political interests would be threatened if we were to address this issue in a substantive way. This camp includes representatives of what I like to call “old industry”—companies and industry sectors whose profits are wrapped up in the status quo. Both of these groups also include elected leaders—whether in the White House or in Congress—who receive support from them or who are them.

In the political struggle over climate change, these two camps are up against a group that believes we need to take this issue seriously and move forward. Many in this group are alarmed about the science and the implications of a warming world, but also perceive real opportunities—both for individual companies and for our nation as a whole—in developing, selling, and using the new technologies that will protect the global climate.

Past vs. future. Status quo vs. change. Profits today vs. new opportunities and a safer world in the days and years to come.

Where does this struggle stand today? Well, in the United States at least, the do-nothing crowd have had several historic victories. The first of these occurred in 1997, when a group of U.S. business interests determined that the international climate negotiations were a threat to their livelihoods and profits.

It was a time when the nations of the world were entering a final phase in their negotiations over an agreement to limit worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. And these businesses did not like it one bit. So what did they do? They launched an enormous advertising campaign, as well as an intense lobbying effort on Capitol Hill. And, in June 1997, their efforts bore fruit in the form of a Senate resolution known as Byrd-Hagel, a resolution that passed by 95 to 0. This resolution stated that the United States should not agree to any binding commitments to reduce emissions unless developing countries also agreed to specific commitments, nor should it agree to anything that might harm the economy of the United States.

Obviously, this was a shot across the bow as the United States prepared to participate in the international negotiations that year in Kyoto, Japan. And, even though the Clinton administration went ahead and negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol, the White House never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. In fact, they barely discussed it. Why not?

Because the Protocol excluded developing nations from any new commitments, and because the Administration could not make a convincing case that there would be no serious economic harm to the United States. But electoral politics also reinforced this view. The Clinton Administration did not oppose Byrd-Hagel, and did not work with Congress to garner any support for what it had negotiated. Negotiating and signing Kyoto was simply a gesture without meaning, a way to show that the difficulties the U.S. experienced in Rio would not be repeated. A way to say we did something without really doing anything. And a way, perhaps, to get elected.

At the same time that the events I have just described were playing out at the national and international levels, a number of brave U.S. business leaders were coming together to acknowledge that, yes, climate change is a problem and that it is in the United States’ interest to do something about it.

When the Pew Center on Global Climate Change initially announced the formation of our Business Environmental Leadership Council, the council had 13 members. Today, we have 38. This is a group that includes everyone from Alcoa, BP and DuPont to IBM, Pacific Gas & Electric and Toyota. And it has served as an effective foil to the notion that business is universally opposed to forward progress on this issue.

In the year 2000, the struggle between the forces of change and the forces of the status quo appeared to reach a turning point. During his run for President that year, then-Governor George W. Bush actually pledged to impose the first-ever restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

This commitment was not made, as you might expect, in response to the demands of environmentalists but in response to industry. A group of major power companies had come up with the idea that they would agree to CO2 restrictions if the government would provide some certainty in its regulation of three air pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

However, as the President put it when discussing his opponent in the current election about another issue, he was in favor of this idea before he was against it.

Not long after the inauguration in January 2001, the President reneged on his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. For good measure, the Administration also unceremoniously noted that the United States was withdrawing from the Kyoto process. According to the White House statement, the treaty was dead.

Why did the President do this? Well, by now it’s obvious that he was choosing sides in the struggle between the past and the future. And he was siding with the past. He was listening to the ideologues and the representatives of old industry, many of whom had supported him in his campaign for the Presidency.

Ask anyone in this administration for an honest opinion on the issue, and they will tell you that restrictions on carbon emissions in this country are inevitable. But the goal of the White House and its allies is to put off that day for as long as it is politically possible to do so.

And so the struggle continues. But in the wake of the White House decisions on CO2 and Kyoto—and, in many instances, because of these decisions—the side of the struggle calling for change and substantive action has become stronger.

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 06:11 PM

At the international level, for example, where the Bush administration’s rejection of Kyoto was seen as a real slap in the face, countries rallied around the Protocol in an act of defiance. And today you have 120 countries signed onto the agreement; its entry into force awaits Russia’s ratification, which is now likely before the end of the year.

Kyoto may not amount to much in terms of achieving significant reductions in global emissions, but it sends the clearest signal yet that much of the world is on the side of doing something about this problem. Much of the world, with the notable exception of the United States, is on the side of the future.

So you have the European Union adopting a carbon dioxide emission trading program. And you have British Prime Minister Tony Blair showing enormous political will both in putting forward a serious plan to substantially reduce emissions, and in his insistence that climate change will be one of two “big” issues that he hopes to address as the Chair of the G-8 process and the European Union in 2005.

And it is not just internationally where the advocates of real action are achieving progress in this struggle. In the United States Senate, we have a bipartisan core of elected leaders who are committed to climate solutions.

The energy bill passed by the Senate in 2002 and again in 2003 would have established a national climate change strategy and required the largest greenhouse gas emitters to disclose their emissions. The Senate’s 2002 farm bill, meanwhile, would have compensated farmers for sequestering carbon. And, perhaps most importantly, in October 2003, 44 Senators supported the Lieberman-McCain bill, legislation that would for the first time establish modest but binding targets for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This is bipartisan legislation, the first bill to be voted on that would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and its support by a significant number of senators marks an important milestone in this nation’s awakening to the problem of climate change.

Unfortunately, it takes both chambers of Congress to enact a law, and the House of Representatives is still stuck in the past. However, even there we are beginning to see some activity: a House companion to Lieberman-McCain, was introduced recently and it currently has 81 cosponsors, 12 of whom are Republicans.

Looking outside of Washington, we see that the forces of change have found new allies in this struggle in state capitals around the country. Particularly in coastal states, policymakers are justifiably concerned about the toll of climate change on their economies. Western states are concerned about the prospects of worsening drought. And, many states plainly see economic opportunities in efforts to address climate change: by producing and selling alternative fuels, becoming exporters of renewable energy, attracting high-tech businesses, or even selling carbon emission reduction credits.

What are states doing to address climate change? Well, right here in California, your governor recently endorsed proposed regulations requiring a 30-percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles sold in the state by 2015. If the California initiative moves forward—and, survives almost certain legal challenges, I see no reason to think it will not—it promises to pave the way for action by other states. And, I was pleased to hear that your governor and the governors of Washington and Oregon are discussing additional measures to limit ghg emissions regionally and cost-effectively.

In the Northeast, 9 governors, led by New York Governor George Pataki, are developing a multi-state regional “cap-and-trade” initiative aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. This effort is proceeding well, and we expect them to complete their work, as planned by April of next year, with agreement on a model rule.

These state initiatives are an important development not only because they can help pave the way for federal action but also because of the simple fact that U.S. states are large emitters of greenhouse gases. California’s emissions, for example, exceed those of Brazil. Ohio’s emissions exceed those of Turkey and Taiwan, and emissions in Illinois exceed those from The Netherlands.

The struggle between the past and the present is being played out in the businesses community as well. Many of the companies we work with at the Pew Center are adopting voluntary targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Consider Dupont, which set a target to reduce its emissions 65 percent below 1990 levels before 2010, and by 2002 had actually reduced their emissions by a stunning 67 percent. I could tell you (but I won’t) about how a lot of other companies are doing similar things. But I will tell you this – all the companies cite one important motivation for taking on a target - to improve their competitive position in the marketplace. The bottom line is that increasing numbers of business leaders understand that climate change is a problem, and they are committing their companies to real solutions—even in the absence of U.S. policies.

What else motivates these companies? Well, for one thing, many of them are multinational companies. They have operations in countries that are party to the Kyoto Protocol and that are implementing new regulations and new policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Some may be reluctant to come out in support of tougher policies and regulations in the United States, but these companies understand the science, they see that regulation is inevitable, and in many cases they view the drive for climate solutions as a business opportunity.

But, of course, voluntary action by selected companies is not enough. Nor will a state-by-state approach alone get us to where we need to be. And while a lot of countries are indeed moving forward, the Kyoto Protocol is a baby step at best. This is where we stand today. The past meets the future. The forces for change are fighting a good fight and gaining ground, but it is clearly not enough.

This suggests to me that we need to approach this issue in a new way. We need to confront the political challenges we face head-on, with facts and figures, and, most importantly, with an agenda that can gain broader support.

I would propose that, in both our global and our national efforts, we need four distinct and complementary approaches.

The first is one with which we are already familiar: targets and trading. This is one thing the framers of the Kyoto Protocol got right, ironically at the insistence of the U.S. By harnessing the power of markets, we can reduce emissions more effectively and more affordably. Inspired by Kyoto, the European Union is on the verge of launching the broadest emissions trading system ever established.

It will likely be some time before we establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade system here in the United States—the politics simply aren’t yet ripe. But what might be possible is a series of interlinked trading systems – the east coast with Europe and perhaps with Canada and the west coast as well. Such a “bottom-up” system could be robust enough both to achieve some environmental benefit and keep costs down. And it would be a valuable learning experience for both sides on this issue, hopefully one that would show that taking action on this issue is both practical and affordable.

Secondly, I think it is critical that we begin to think in terms of key sectors. Both globally and nationally, two of the largest and fastest-growing sources of emissions are transportation and power. And it is in these sectors that we have many of those who would like to put off action as long as possible. Let’s look first at transportation. The automobile industry is global, and it is highly concentrated. The 10 largest manufacturers account for 74% percent of the global market. The vast majority of cars are produced – and used – in a relatively small number of countries. Major fuel producers are also relatively small in number.

What if we could get all these key players in a room to agree on a pathway toward a goal of zero emissions from autos in 30-50 years, with some clear milestones along the way? This is not a proposal to dictate specific technologies – each major manufacturer seems to be going down a different technology path – but a way to set globally consistent performance standards with an end-result that we need if we are to be successful in out effort to address climate change. And at the same time, we could launch an intensive public-private R&D program to help deliver the technologies that will make it possible.

No, it wouldn’t be easy, and it will be opposed by many who would argue that it is simply too hard. But is it easier, or smarter, to tackle the problem nation by nation, or state by state? At the moment, there are different auto efficiency or CO2 emission standards or goals in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, China, Korea, and Taiwan. We also have the proposal from California that, if it goes into effect, will doubtless be followed by other states. Added to that we have $52 per barrel of oil. I wonder if the time isn’t close for the private sector to decide that a rational, long-term effort, in which they are “at the table” and can help set the milestones, might not be better than the alternative.

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 06:16 PM

The power sector, equally important, is very different. Power supplies are much more distributed -- there are hundreds, if not thousands of players (far too many to put into a room, let alone around a table), and there are many different ways to generate power. So here we might focus on selected energy sources, the most important of which, both politically and in terms of emissions contribution, is coal. There is no denying that coal will figure heavily in our energy future. It is globally available and it is cheap. Virtually all the new power plants being planned here in the United States will burn coal. China is projected to add as much as 300 gigawatts of generating capacity over the next 10 years, nearly all of it coal.

How then do we continue to provide power but minimize the impact on the climate? How do we shift investment away from traditional coal plants to newer technologies that will be compatible with the efforts underway to capture CO2 emissions and sequester them deep in the ground? Here, too, I think we need a combination: a global R&D effort, and a clear set of mandates to pull new and better technologies into the market. Many in the coal industry are beginning to see the need for a more proactive strategy, and if they can be assured a place in the future, they may begin to give up the technologies of the past.

A third kind of strategy we need is one that integrates climate and development. We cannot expect developing countries to become full partners in the climate effort if it continues to be seen as a purely environmental issue, a constraint on economic growth and development. Frankly, this is true in developed countries as well. We need policies that speak both to climate and to core development priorities. The place to start, I would suggest, is with national energy policies. Each nation needs to accept that climate change must be one of the drivers of energy policy.

Here, I think the British are way ahead of most of the rest of the world. For them, energy policy has three drivers: security of supply, price and climate change, and they have developed an energy blueprint for a 50 year time period that attempts to accommodate all three. There is no reason why other countries cannot also move forward in this way, and should they do so, I believe we will begin to see a genuine effort to limit emissions while meeting the energy needs of a growing global economy.

Finally, because some degree of climate change is now unavoidable, responsible climate policy must also help us to adapt. Climate change is happening, and it is going to accelerate in the years ahead, no matter what we do. We can minimize its effects, but at the same time we will need to adapt. Taking a proactive approach is necessary for minimizing future costs. That includes thinking about everything from development patterns and zoning to water systems in a new way. It is not too soon for governments at all levels and the private sector to begin incorporating climate change risks into everyday investment decisions.

The bottom line is that climate change is not simply an environmental issue; it is fundamentally an issue of economics and development. And this is why I believe we must succeed in marrying the old and the new: because we need both sides to succeed. Those that now perceive that their economic or political interests are threatened are the ones that can ultimately drive this issue, once they see that their interests will also be served by shaping and implementing climate solutions.

But how do we manage this? To build the coalitions we need, we will have to depend on a variety of factors: public awareness, media attention, elections, and even the weather. But we will also have to create approaches that can attract broad constituencies, that can invite people, businesses, governments – everybody – to play a part in this effort, and that can treat everyone fairly and with respect. And, finally and most importantly, we will need strong political leadership to pull it off.

Are we there yet? No, but I believe we are making some headway. Some political leaders are beginning to emerge on this issue, and there is great experimentation with different policy approaches. We will get closer still as people begin to understand that this is about more than climatology and atmospheric levels of CO2. This is about all of us, and the choices we make: the cars we drive, the representatives we elect. It is a about the future we choose, and the legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren. Choose well.

And thank you very much.

http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/speech_transcripts/stanford.cfm
_________________________________________

Well, I'd say she has it right, although some things have changed since she gave this speech.

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 06:36 PM

This is an amazingly thorough site regarding especially the US, climate change, and what we're doing about it!

http://www.pewclimate.org/

BC :D

eckartjr

02-23-2005, 06:39 PM

[COLOR=DarkSlateGray]Here we go again

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HAARP To Install
516 More Antennas
2-13-5

Note - That's over and above the 132 that were just installed last year. And that's over and above the original 48 antennas that were perfectly adequate to fry the earth many times over.[B][COLOR=Red]

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/
Antenna Products Corporation Awarded Contract

Feb. 7, 2005

FORT WORTH, Tx (BUSINESS WIRE) -- PHAZAR CORP announced today that Antenna Products Corporation in Mineral Wells, Texas, a wholly owned subsidiary, was recently awarded a $3,723,531 firm fixed price subcontract from BAE SYSTEMS ATI for the production of 270 Low Band Antenna Matching Unit Assemblies and 346 High Band Antenna Matching Unit Assemblies. This equipment will be manufactured at Antenna Product Corporation's plant in Mineral Wells, Texas, and deliveries are scheduled to begin in June, 2005 and continue monthly through September, 2005. The equipment will be shipped to the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) ionospheric research site near Gakona, Alaska, the site of the recently completed installation of an array of 132 crossed dipole antennas built and installed by Antenna Products Corporation in 2004.

As the result of this order, Antenna Products Corporation's backlog of orders as of Feb. 4, 2005 was approximately $5.9 million.

Information on PHAZAR CORP is available on the Internet web page at www.phazar.com and at www.antennaproducts.com.

The common stock of PHAZAR CORP is listed on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market under the trading symbol "ANTP." This press release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of Section 29A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performances and underlying assumption and other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts. Certain statements contained herein are forward-looking statements and, accordingly, involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results, or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. The Company's expectations, beliefs and projections are expressed in good faith and are believed by the Company to have a reasonable basis, including without limitations, management's examination of historical operating trends, data contained in the Company's records and other data available from third parties, but there can be no assurance that management's expectations, beliefs or projections will result, or be achieved, or accomplished.

Contacts
Antenna Products Corporation
Kathy Kindle, 940-325-3301
Fax: 940-325-0716
kindle@antennaproducts.com
_________________
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a friend of mine"
~ Che Guevara

halva

02-27-2005, 01:43 AM

Published in Greek American Review (January 2005,) page 5, and on Hellenic Communication Services http://www.helleniccomserve.com/bestwishestous.html

Best wishes for 2005 to our US cousins: but we still fear your government policies!
By Andrew Leech (aleech@ath.forthnet.gr)

This article was inspired by Peter Makrias’ reply to a greetings Email I sent recently. “It was a pleasure to hear from you after such a long time, with a message full of love and not hatred for the United States.” It made me think, and realise, that the prevalent European fear of the current leadership of the USA was being perceived by some US citizens as a blanket attack on them – which, of course, it is not - though we have some difficulty in understanding why you voted Bush in for a second term!

It is an article I did not enjoy writing, but it is one I felt necessary to write; not just to put the views expressed in it forward (after all, who am I to criticize what appears to be, legally, the wish of the majority of enfranchised US citizens - especially having Americans among my own family?), but to show that they are part of a general feeling. Why do thousands, if not millions, of Europeans feel this way towards the USA they previously so loved? As a friend of the US, I also feel pain when I see you ostracised by so many!

The prevalent anti-US feeling in Europe is, generally speaking, confined to those current US government policies which are perceived as anti-social (globally), serving only the interests of US ‘big-business’, and are to the detriment of other nations sharing this planet. It is certainly not directed against the American people - our cousins - whom we feel are equally threatened by those same policies we, ourselves, fear. This seems to be the general view expressed by European newspapers, magazines and those who think; though a few others may have reacted differently, blindly hitting out at everything with a US tag, in a sense of inarticulate frustration.

From birth, the last two European generations have been brought up to respect the US, to look on it as a bulwark for freedoms, to deeply appreciate the help – and American blood - given us in the past 64 years. Greeks, in particular, remember the Marshall Plan aid that saved many from starvation! We loved, respected, cared and cherished those US citizens who came over and risked their lives - often dying - to help us preserve those freedoms we were trying to re-establish. That is a debt we cannot – and will not - ever forget.

But now we see that same saviour, that same gentle giant, starting to behave in a somewhat similar manner to those who sought to repress us in the past. This surprises you, perhaps? Well, bear with me; I shall explain. First came the disregard for the legal standing of the United Nations in the case of both invasion of the Balkans (in the mid-nineties) and, more recently, Iraq. It is true that the media position taken in both those cases fuelled the outrage of US citizens (and many European) and persuaded them that direct, military intervention was the only resort left in the interest of human rights. It is also true that various US governments can claim they acted on the pressure being applied by those vocal citizens; and it is, furthermore, probably true that military intervention was thought the only way to save lives. But it is equally true that in both cases those decisions were taken in violation of United Nations decisions. This is very worrying as disregard for the law and binding treaties has always been the kick-off point for any form of future domination, or dictatorship. It is always perceived as highly threatening by smaller or weaker nations.

However, what has intensified these negative feelings towards the White House and Pentagon, is that in the years that passed after these actions (i.e. the decade from the mid 1990s to today) we see that they seem to have merely been springboards for US ‘big business’ aspirations and many Europeans feel that it was the business interests, rather than concern for the human element that was the main lever governing government intervention. In fact, many people are starting to feel that the US government, today, is nothing more than a front for those businesses whose only consideration is extending their power and spheres of influence with little regard for ethics. Look at your newspapers – I read the New York Times, daily, as well as European papers – for evidence of this statement.

Rightly or wrongly, many feel that the actions of the current president give those people overseas the impression of his being a front-man, or patsy, for these business groups and that the wishes of the majority of ordinary US citizen are rarely taken into account, perhaps even stifled, when they conflict with these stronger interests. And this, in spite of those who voted Bush in for a second term. I could use the constant refusals of the US to sign the Kyoto treaty as evidence here, where it refuses to join the other 127 countries who are trying to reduce global warming emissions and reverse some of the damage already done to this planet; much of which has actually been caused by the USA. It is remarkable to note that I have yet to meet a US citizen in Greece who has anything positive to say about his government. Do only world-orientated Americans travel abroad?

Regarding the slide of the dollar I could offer the viewpoint of William Pesek Jr, (Bloomberg News, 21 Dec 2004, in International Herald Tribune) where he considers the reasons to be couched in US foreign policy. Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist of Banc of America Capital Management in New York thinks the U.S. image as a "rogue nation" is a key force behind the dollar's decline. "The message from the foreign exchange markets" of late "seems to be simply this: The free ride for the rogue nation is over," The sinking dollar, Quinlan says, "could be a sign that the world is no longer willing to underwrite the designs of U.S. foreign policy. To a large extent, we believe a rebound in the U.S. dollar could hinge on a revamped foreign policy."

Some long-time Asia watchers like Marc Faber (Hong Kong-based head of the company that bears his name) have also been warning investors that U.S. foreign policy will hurt the dollar. Faber has focused on the possibility that the United States will attack Iran and that what he views as "continuous human rights abuses" by the Bush administration in Iraq and elsewhere have made China's human rights record "look like Cinderella." That perception, he says, increasingly worries investors who wonder about Bush's plans for the world during his second term.

The dollar's declines, Quinlan says, "mirror America's plunging approval rating with the rest of the world." The nation's image has been hurt not only by the Iraq war, he says, but also by its rejection of the Kyoto environmental treaty, its strained relations with international institutions like the United Nations and its mounting visa restrictions. "It seems as if America's popularity with the rest of the world has never been lower," Quinlan says. "Little wonder, then, that the U.S. dollar is as unloved as it is today."

It is interesting that the British legal profession, and the people, have rebelled against Tony Blair’s total support of the US government. Now the highest legal authority in Britain, the Law Lords, has ruled that international law does not permit the indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects (done in Britain as well as in the US) and sternly declared that laws abridging liberties posed a greater threat to a democracy than terrorism itself.

However, there are some pointers that show encouragement for the future. First, many American people are waking up and beginning to realise that their government’s policies are often not in their own interests. They are beginning to feel that their government is only interested in their opinion at voting time and that for the rest of the four year term they are being sidelined, like silent observers, to what is being done in their name, overseas. They are beginning to resent being ‘tarred’ for actions they feel they are not part of. I refer to articles in US newspapers for this observation.

They are also beginning to understand how much the US media sanitises and alters their view of the outside world to suit domestic requirements (e.g. CNN shows a different version of the news in Europe). They are realising to a greater degree that they are not alone in the world and that their personal comfort may result in another’s hardship. They are starting to develop a real sense of ethics and responsibility that I see is often at odds with their government’s stance. In short, they are starting to display the viewpoint of the true global citizen.

halva

02-27-2005, 01:44 AM

jayreynolds

02-27-2005, 07:47 AM

For this awakening, I am grateful and hopeful. At last Europe is beginning to see what may be the real inner American spirit and we are with you all the way. We want to see, again, the America we have always loved, the America we have always respected. We want to see an America governed and directed by that inner democratic and fair sense we have always known, seen and respected in the average American we met. We wish those far-seeing American people to once again legally hold the reins of that wonderful country they live in. That is Europe’s – and possibly the world’s - wish for 2005: that the American citizen can once again equal the moral strength it evidenced in 1775, and show the world that a government cannot control or stifle its citizens, that big business cannot dictate or bully its consumers or its government; and that “big business” must be made to understand that the dictum “the customer is always right” still applies in this day and age. After all, repudiation of US policies also means repudiation of US business - which is certainly not good for business! Go to it, cousins, we are with you all the way in showing the world where the true American spirit lies!!

What a crock. You have previously stated you wished the US was a monarchy, and that we should annex Canada and Mexico.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28794
You have also dismissed our constitutional protections for free speech, asserting that totalitarian restrictions are "superior".
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=248598&postcount=6791

You are a liar and a hypocrite, Wayne Hall. a sapper and miner against our contry and freedom itself. If you had your way, the earth would be a totalitarian nigtmare.

halva

02-27-2005, 08:39 AM

What are you talking about?

That was just the end of the preceding article, which was written not by me but by a gentleman I happen to know.

It was just over 10,000 characters and wouldn't fit in one posting.

eckartjr

02-27-2005, 09:12 AM

This is an amazingly thorough site regarding especially the US, climate change, and what we're doing about it!

http://www.pewclimate.org/

BC :D
pewclimate has not a single reference to HAARP. Perhaps just another case of keeping the public in the dark about that which really matters, via the usual PR campaign also known as propaganda! Ladies and gentlemen we must eventually start looking and thinking out of the box. For instance there are this ancient stigmas about Creationists and Evolutionists - but what about a third option?
The same with "blue' states and 'red' states no third color? Give me a break what about 'purple'?
you see we are always lead to these limiting arguments: this side or that side as though there were no other alternatives, preventing fresh thinking and inquiry.

foot_soldier

02-27-2005, 09:28 AM

ekartjr wrote:
.....you see we are always led to these limiting arguments: this side or that side as though there were no other alternatives, preventing fresh thinking and inquiry.....
I think a lot of people are fully aware of the trap which you are describing here.

Just so you know.

halva

02-28-2005, 07:05 AM

This is the other side of the recognized debate in Britain.

It's quite right that we have to introduce new parameters.

SCIENTIFIC ALLIANCE

NEWSLETTER

28.02.05

Welcome to the Scientific Alliance’s newsletter. The Newsletter contains an update on the Scientific Alliance’s work and a selection of environmental science and policy news that has appeared in the UK during the last month.

ABOUT US

Formed in 2001, the Scientific Alliance is a non-profit membership-based organisation based in London. The Alliance brings together both scientists and non-scientists committed to rational discussion and debate on the challenges facing the environment today.

As a membership based campaign organisation, the Scientific Alliance welcomes donations from individuals, scientific and academic institutions, societies, trusts, companies, trade associations and other organisations. Donations and support are crucial to enable us to carry out our work, but they are only accepted without conditions and afford no influence over the policy of the Scientific Alliance.

NOT A MEMBER?

As most of you know, the Scientific Alliance is a non-profit membership based organisation and relies on donations from supporters. If you are interested in our work and support our views, we would very much welcome your membership. By joining the Scientific Alliance, you will contribute to our activities and simultaneously receive various benefits. You will secure your own active involvement and support for the Alliance, helping to shape our future direction, and receive invitations and reduced rates to our regular events and conferences. Should you like to sign up now, simply go to our website at http://www.scientific-alliance.org/support_us_membership.htm

EVENTS

Apocalypse No: Assessing Catastrophic Climate Change, 27 January 2005

January saw the Scientific Alliance hosting a conference designed to raise awareness about the scientific uncertainties surrounding the theory and practice of climate change. It addressed a range of questions concerning scenarios of catastrophic climate change including rising sea levels, extreme weather events and glacial melting. The conference took place in advance of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research conference; Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases, and helped to raise the profile of some of the alternative less alarmist positions currently held within the climate change debate.

We were pleased that the debate generated at this conference was not only highly informative but also appeared to generate real interest and excitement amongst the audience and the media. The Scientific Alliance would like to thank all the speakers for their excellent contributions and hope that all those who attended found them as informative and beneficial as we did.

We will shortly be producing the final draft of proceedings from the event, and will notify you when these proceedings are available on the website.

The Scientific Alliance is currently finalising plans for a number of forthcoming events. Further details will be available soon on the Alliance’s website and in the next edition of this newsletter.

COVERAGE OF ‘APOCALYPSE NO: ASSESSING CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE’ FROM THE UK AND AROUND THE WORLD

Global warming? We need it to prevent an ice age – Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/01/31/ecrqed.xml

There was a time when people were cheered by the first signs of spring in their garden or local park. Not any more: the mere appearance of a budding tree is seized on by environmentalists as proof positive that our seasons are being driven haywire by climate change – and It's All Our Fault.

‘The Danger is hot air, not global warming’ – Sunday Telegraph
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/30/do3001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/30/ixopinion.html

To lift Africa from the ravages of poverty and Aids would to most world leaders seem a big enough topic to fill a single speech. But not Tony Blair. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, the Prime Minister moved swiftly between the subjects of Africa and climate change. "On both," he said, "there are differences which need to be reconciled. If they could be reconciled or at least moved forward, it would make a huge difference to the prospects of international unity, as well as to people's lives and our future survival."

‘Evidence of green effrontery’ – The Times
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/miscalaneous/evidenceofgreen.htm

Green lobbyists have always been good at getting their retaliation in first. A whiff of GM pollen, carbon dioxide or nuclear fuel, and the press releases come thick and fast.

‘Climate change impact disputed’ – The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1400561,00.html

Here is the truth about global warming: it is an anti-capitalist agenda, a Machiavellian political plot and a convenient rumour started by bungling Japanese pineapple farmers. It is a front for paranoia about immigration, an incitement to civil war, and the reason that the world's attention was distracted from the risk of a tsunami. And it hasn't killed as many people as Hitler or Stalin.

‘Kyoto's Walls Are Crumbling Down’ – Tech Central Station
http://www.techcentralstation.com/021405A.html

The Kyoto Protocol goes into effect Wednesday, and yet its walls are crumbling down.
‘Cool heads required: As long as the climate change debate is fuelled by politics, the science will remain up in the air’ – Spiked
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA8CF.htm

At a recent global warming conference in Exeter called by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, all the usual fears were aired. Yet real debate about climate change seems to be strictly prohibited.

‘Climate change: the debate is warming’ – One World
http://uk.oneworld.net/article/view/102529/1/

Climate change activists are coming under fire from two sides in London. One band of opponents is trying to shoot them down for exaggerating the problem. A second group argues that although global temperatures are set to rise, money should be spent first on more immediate crises in developing countries, such as lack of clean water.

SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE NEWS FROM THE UK AND AROUND THE WORLD
GM
‘Lift the crushing burden on biotech foods’ – FT
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/biotechnology/liftthecrushing.htm

The European Commission has recently asked five member states to lift their bans on genetically modified (GM) crops and foods.
GM Beet can benefit environment – BBC News Online
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/biotechnology/gmbeet.htm

Some genetically-modified crops can be managed in a way that is beneficial to wildlife, a UK research team believes. Their work, published by the Royal Society, says there is "conclusive evidence" of benefits to wildlife from GM sugar beet crops.

Climate Change
‘Global warming hotheads would burn sceptics at the stake’ – Times
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/climate/globalwarminghotheads.htm

Never mind the posters of Michael Howard as a flying pig, or the advertisements that expose our children to the stunted genitals of that Crazy Frog from the mobile ringtone. The most shocking advert today is the one about the apocalyptic dangers of climate change from the government-funded Carbon Trust. Unlike the other two ads it has not provoked public controversy, but to my mind its message is as crude as a Tory pig or an amphibian flasher.

‘The end is nigh - but Kyoto will cost us dear’ – Times
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/climate/kyoto.htm

The globe will not notice Kyoto — but we will notice, because it will cost us a bomb. What is the collective noun for environmental modellers? Try a catastrophe.

Dire warnings on global warming are just hot air - Times
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/climate/direwarnings.htm

Global warming has a way of prompting metaphors so bad they destroy a claim to seriousness. This week’s prize goes to Klaus Toepfer, head of the Kenya-based United Nations Environment Programme. Climate change could lead to Earth “spinning out of control”, he warned, neglecting to describe the time when the planet’s climate, or rotation, have been under control.

halva

02-28-2005, 07:06 AM

Energy
‘Bury nuclear waste, says report’ - The Guardian
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/energy/burynuclear.htm

The government's inability to deal with nuclear waste should not delay a decision on a new generation of power stations, a House of Lords committee will argue today.

‘Blair set to press nuclear button’ – Independent
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/energy/blairsetto.htm

Tony Blair is preparing to commit the country to the biggest nuclear power programme since the 1960s if he wins the forthcoming general election.

‘Wind farms are all very well but nuclear energy is the way forward’ - Telegraph
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/energy/windfarmsare.htm

You need a heart of stone not to laugh. Here is Holy Tony preaching that global warming is the worst problem we face (although he seems to say that about international terrorism, crime in the cities or poverty in Africa) and boasting how well we are doing in cutting carbon dioxide emissions, and what's this? A stand-up row with the European Commission over Britain's attempt to move the start-line to make it easier to hit the target.

Chemicals
‘Brussels softens line on chemicals’ – Financial Times
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/chemicals/brusselssoftens.htm

The European Commission has signalled its willingness to tone down controversial plans for an overhaul of the rules governing Europe's chemicals industry, in a sign that Brussels accepts some of the criticism made by business groups. Günter Verheugen, the European Union industry commissioner, said the Commission would be "attentive" to a range of problems raised by industry.

Miscellaneous
‘Careless science costs lives’ – The Guardian
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/miscalaneous/carelessscience.htm

The public is wrong to regard all profit-driven research as suspect. In science, as in much of life, it is believed that you get what you pay for. According to opinion polls, people do not trust scientists who work for industry because they only care about profits, or government scientists because they suspect them of trying to cover up the truth. Scientists who work for environmental NGOs are more highly regarded.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLICY NEWS
Climate Change
The Department for The Environment, Food And Rural Affairs (Defra), announced a £12m package of funding over three years as the first part of a new climate change communications initiative to change public attitudes towards climate change. The announcement follows a report from consultants Futerra, who were asked to develop an evidence-based strategy, addressing public attitudes as a key step towards achieving the UK's climate change targets.

The initiative will focus strongly on communicating at a local and regional level, where the evidence suggests is can be most effective. Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: "Evidence suggests that we need to engage people close to home if we are going to succeed in changing attitudes to climate change. (Read More...)

Energy
Global efforts to move towards a low carbon economy were boosted as REEEP, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, received its most substantial commitment of funding to date. Margaret Beckett, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced in Buenos Aires that her Department will contribute £2.5million (c.$5M) to REEEP in the 2005-6 financial year. Speaking at a meeting of the governing board of REEEP, Mrs Beckett said: "I am very happy to announce that my Department will contribute £2.5million, or about $5million, to support the work of REEEP in the 2005-6 financial year. I hope that we will be able to support it at least as generously in future years. I also hope that REEEP will increasingly be supported as strongly by other partner countries.” (Read More...)

Waste and Recycling
Local authorities across England have been set limits on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste they can dispose of in landfill sites. Environment Minister Elliot Morley today confirmed the final allocation of landfill allowances for England's 121 waste disposal authorities. Allocations have been set in advance of the launch of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) on 1 April this year. (Read More…)

England is set to launch the world's first allowance trading scheme for municipal waste. The trading scheme, to be introduced in April 2005, is a further step in the drive to move to more sustainable waste management practices, like composting, for biodegradable waste, such as kitchen and garden waste. It will benefit councils, such as Isle of Wight District Council, Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council and Dorset County Council who have taken the lead in dealing with kitchen and garden waste by collecting, composting and recycling over a quarter of household waste produced in their region during 2002/03. The scheme has been developed by Government to help local authorities meet tough targets under the EU Landfill Directive to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill sites. (Read More...)

Chemicals
A public consultation on a draft national strategy for the sustainable use of plant protection products was launched on behalf of the UK Government and devolved administrations by the Pesticides Safety Directorate. The Government sees a national strategy as the next logical step in its ongoing policy to minimise the risk to the environment from pesticide products without jeopardising the benefits of crop protection for growers and consumers. The draft strategy will help set the future direction of policy, and covers all uses of plant protection products, not just agriculture. It includes:

* legal controls;

* measures that complement regulation and influence how products are used;

* draft action plans for sustainable use with the aims of:

* reducing the pollution of water from plant protection products;

* limiting the possible adverse effects of plant protection products on biodiversity;

* providing growers with a variety of cultivation tools and methods;

* reducing adverse consequences in non-agricultural situations such as in domestic gardens, sports grounds, parks and other open spaces;

* reducing adverse environmental impacts through targeted use reduction.

* draft targets and indicators for each action plan to measure the strategy's success - in particular the economic and environmental aspects of sustainable plant protection product use.

The consultation document is available electronically and in paper format and can be viewed and downloaded from:
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp?id=1539 Comments on the strategy should reach the Pesticides Safety Directorate by 30th June 2005. Comments received in response to this consultation will be taken into account in finalising the strategy, its action plans, targets and indicators, and associated regulatory impact assessment. (Read More...)

Miscellaneous
The UK ratified the United Nations' Aarhus Convention, covering the public's involvement in three areas of environmental democracy; access to environmental information, participation in e
environmental decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

The Convention directly supports one of the guiding principles of sustainable development, which places importance on a transparent system of governance that has the full involvement of stakeholders. It sets out international standards on how to engage the public in environmental issues and to improve the quality and effectiveness of decisions through their involvement. (Read More...)

Boomer Chick

02-28-2005, 10:21 AM

Excellent offerings, Halva! I've already given you onboard positive comments and points for your other excellent posts! Did you know that?

I'll be visiting the science alliance sites especially!

Thanks!

BC :D

Boomer Chick

02-28-2005, 11:08 AM

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050210_2005_temp.html

Toasty 2005? Year Could Become Warmest on Record
By LiveScience Staff

posted: 10 February 2005
04:00 pm ET

Last year was the fourth warmest since the late 1800s and climate conditions in place could cause 2005 to be the warmest, NASA scientists said this week.

The analysis of 2004 data by NASA confirms figures for 2004 released in December by the World Meteorological Organization. The numbers are based measuring stations around the globe, with each day's high and low being averaged. Temperatures are recorded on land and at sea, in part with satellite data.

The 2004 average temperature at Earth's surface around the world was 0.86 Fahrenheit (0.48 degrees Celsius) above the average temperature from 1951 to 1980, NASA scientists said.

The warmest four years since 1890s, when reliable record-keeping began:

1998
2002
2003
2004

"There has been a strong warming trend over the past 30 years, a trend that has been shown to be due primarily to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

In any year, temperatures around the world can be nudged up or down by short-term factors like volcanic eruptions or El Ninos, when warm water spreads over much of the tropical Pacific Ocean. The large spike in global temperature in 1998 was associated with one of the strongest El Ninos of recent centuries, the scientists say, and a weak El Nino contributed to the unusually high 2002-2003 global temperatures.

Manmade pollutants play a role, too, most scientists agree. Hansen said Earth's surface now absorbs more of the Sun's energy than gets reflected back to space.

That extra energy, together with the weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than the years of 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998, which had stood out as far hotter than any year in the preceding century, according to a NASA statement.

Hansen and his colleagues also note that global warming is now significant enough that it is beginning to affect seasons, making them warmer than before on a more consistent basis.

Some scientists argue that the human contribution to global warming has been insignificant.

Boomer Chick

02-28-2005, 11:19 AM

Interactive and information rich museum exhibit presenting Global Warming Facts and Our Future :

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-28-2005, 12:53 PM

In light of phased array waves impinging upon our environment, I thought this study regarding possible physiological affects to humans and plant and animal life would be appropriate. I realize this doesn't prove or disprove HAARP's or related technologies' impact on the weather or climate, but nonetheless, the affects of the waves themselves to those directly exposed are quite important to note.

An Assessment of Potential Health Effects from Exposure to PAVE PAWS Low-Level Phased-Array Radiofrequency Energy

Committee to Assess Potential Health Effects from Exposures to PAVE PAWS Low-Level Phased-Array Radiofrequency Energy, National Research Council

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11205.html

BC

peace-fries

02-28-2005, 01:00 PM

USH REAFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR GLOBAL WARMING
http://www.warriorofthelight.com

Makes Earth a ‘Homier’ Place, President Says

On the day that the U.N. Kyoto Protocol finally went into effect, President George W. Bush reaffirmed his strong support for global warming, arguing that the phenomenon helps to make the world a “toastier, homier” place.

“Right now, Hawaii has a climate that is the envy of the world,” Mr. Bush said at a White House briefing. “If global warming continues at its current pace, by 2050 the whole world will be as hot as Hawaii, if not hotter.”

President Bush added that global warming – far from being the threat to the world's eco-system that many experts say it is -- may actually be the best long-term solution to the world’s energy problems.

“If the world got a few degrees warmer every year, we wouldn’t have to turn up the darned thermostat so much,” Mr. Bush said. “Thanks to global warming, the world will be a toastier, homier place.”

Mr. Bush said that each and every American can do his or her part to help increase global warming, adding, “Instead of walking to the corner, drive your SUV.”

“A lot of folks think they can't do much to produce greenhouse gasses, but that's just not true,” Mr. Bush said. “Every little bit helps.”

President Bush departed from his remarks on global warming to comment on the current situation in Syria, calling for “the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops in the Middle East except for the ones I put there.”

Elsewhere, prosecutors in Santa Maria, California, questioned how Michael Jackson could be suffering from “flu-like symptoms” when he does not have a nose.
_________________
Only one thing makes a dream impossible: the fear of failure.
http://www.warriorofthelight.com

Boomer Chick

02-28-2005, 02:13 PM

Not surprised by the Bushie line! ;)

One should consider all the information available on the present reality of our warming planet. Because I point to the solar factors contributing, does not negate the simultaneous greenhouse affect caused by CO2, clouds, and other factors. However, the sun may indeed be on the longer term, slowly warming the planet as well. We must be open to all information.

A Canadian study on the solar influence regarding climate change:

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html

__________________________________________

From the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center--EOS Project Science Office :

NASA study finds increasing solar trend that can change climate

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum."

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the sun's total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978. The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978 - 1993). Other records came from NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980 - 1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991 - 2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. The European Space Agency's (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set (1996 to 1998).

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.

NASA's ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 experiment began in 2000 and will extend the long-term solar observations into the future for at least a five-year minimum mission.

###
For more information on the Internet, visit: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

For more information about ACRIM on the Internet, visit: http://www.acrim.com

related link: http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story03-20-03.html

Boomer Chick

03-01-2005, 01:40 PM

"It's Too Late to Stop Climate Change"
Interview conducted by Daryl Lindsey
Spiegel

Friday 18 February 2005

Dr. Hermann Ott is the director of the Berlin office of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, one of Europe's leading climate policy research organizations. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, he says that global warming is inevitable and mankind must take steps for the softest landing possible. It will also mean fundamental changes in the way we live.

Ott: If we do not act decisively, I would assume an increase of between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. But it could easily be 6 degrees. That's a little bit greater than the difference between now and the last ice age. Europe will look very different, but of course, the effects are not going to be the same everywhere. In some parts of the world you'll have a change of 10 degrees or 11 degrees. In others you will have only an increase of 1 or 2 degrees. If we talk about skepticism among scientists, it's not about whether or not man-made climate change exists, it's more about what the impacts are going to be. Increasingly, we have computer models that can predict more accurately, but it will take a few years before we know concretely what will happen.

It could be hotter or rainier in some places or it could get cooler in Northern Europe if the Gulf Stream is disrupted. If that happens, we will have temperatures maybe 5 degrees lower than now. Some argue that a 5 degree increase from global warming would offset the effects of a disrupted Gulf Stream, but we already know that fiddling with the system can produce results we are incapable of handling anymore - and, frankly, we don't know which direction it's going to steer.

Spiegel: The Kyoto Protocol is an incredibly watered-down agreement - it doesn't even require developing nations like India or China to commit to any reduction targets on greenhouse gas emissions. Why bother?

Ott: I'm not one of those to say Kyoto is not worth the paper it's printed on. The main criticisms come from those who want greater emissions reductions and from others who are actually inimical to the protocol. But this is the compromise the global community was able to achieve and to me it is the only realistic political model. If we negotiated Kyoto today, it would probably look worse. If you propose a 50 percent cut by 2040, which is what we probably need, nobody will enter into such an agreement because it's too far away and it is politically unrealistic. Instead you go step-by-step, with very low and modest obligations first that can be strengthened over time.

Spiegel: When you speak of antagonists - or those "inimical" - of Kyoto, are you referring to the United States and Australia, which refused to ratify Kyoto?

Ott: Yes, but it's also industry, especially the fossil fuel industry - the coal lobby is still very strong. Nevertheless, I'm pretty certain the United States will be part of the next round after Kyoto, simply because they will be forced to by the people. There will be climate changes and they will be felt. Ironically, it was the US that actually started the whole process when James Hanson testified before Congress in 1988, and it was the US that started the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As soon as we have freaky weather events in the US again, we'll see a change in attitudes.

The farmers will have to be effected before they move on this - perhaps through some major event like a serious drought. Farmers are the political base of the current administration and as soon as they are affected, you will see changes. Any administration will join at that point, and then I predict the US will take the lead on the issue, though nobody believes it right now. In the meantime, the Europeans are giving their industry a competitive advantage over their American counterparts.

Spiegel: By forcing companies to cut their emissions and make more energy efficient technologies?

Ott: By forcing them to become more efficient and to develop technologically advanced products that can make it on the world market. Look at the oil crisis of the 1970s - it opened the American automobile market up to Japanese and European automakers with more fuel efficient vehicles. They got their share and still haven't lost it. The same will happen with consumer goods. Conglomerates will change their products to meet the standards of Europe and Japan and they will also sell them in the US.

Spiegel: And you think that will be enough to get the Americans to move on the issue?

Ott: We're going to see a change of attitudes in the United States and we will see some concrete actions. By that time, the emissions trading program in the European Union will have been proved, or disproved, its worth. But I presume it will be successful.

Spiegel: Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, recently said that we are approaching the point of no return. Another recent report said we are already beyond it. What do you think?

Ott: It's too late to stop climate change, that's for sure, but we can still influence the degree of changes and the degree of impacts. We can prepare for a softer landing. Once the impact of climate change becomes visible, politics will react quickly and forcefully. We saw that in Germany in 2002 during the floods on the Elbe River. They, in fact, determined the result of the (general) elections (later that same year). What we're trying to do now is to steer our boat on a course that is a little more sustainable so that the crash will not be as hard as it otherwise would be.

Spiegel: The German government says that emissions need to be reduced by up to 70 percent on the long term. Is that possible using existing technologies? What other steps must be taken?

Ott: We're very optimistic that it can be achieved - to a great extent even with current technologies. By 2020 we need at least a 20 percent cut in emissions around the world. For the European Union that means something more like 30 percent, or 40 percent for Germany. But the potential for cutting emissions in the US through better energy efficiency, through better use of renewable energy sources, is so vast that reductions could be achieved quickly. Look at the recent electricity crisis in California - consumption dropped by close to 30 percent within a couple of days. You just have to stop wasting energy. In Germany, between 20-40 percent could be saved without any technological advances and without people noticing any dramatic changes in their daily lives.

Spiegel: But you're not just talking about recycling or turning the lights out when you leave a room. Many people are already doing this in Europe and the US. So what kind of lifestyle change are you really predicting?

Ott: I was an avid reader of futurists during the 1970s and '80s. They were so wrong - about everything. It's always difficult to make predictions about the future. But what you could see is a lifestyle that is completely independent from fossil fuels and very independent from outside energy.

In terms of infrastructure, people will aim at living near where they work. We will have much more localized lifestyles. Travel requires a great deal of energy - whether you go by car, by bus, by train or plane. We'll likely be using hydrogen as our main energy for transport. Individual transportation has become synonymous for freedom and liberty, so it would be difficult to actually get rid of individualized transport, and in rural areas that would be impossible. So we will have individual transport, but on a much lower scale.

Boomer Chick

03-01-2005, 01:42 PM

Spiegel: So you're suggesting we won't be able to just hop on a jet and fly to some far off beach in Thailand in the future?

Ott: In my pessimistic moments I think we will go in a direction where only a very tiny part of the population will actually be able to lead the kind of life that we have now - where we have full access to medical supplies and can basically travel wherever we want. In my more optimistic moments I envision the same, but I don't see it as being a major hardship for people. Many won't be able to travel, but we will have much better ways of communicating, through video conferencing, for example, that will allow us to stay local without feeling too remote or isolated. But it's clear we will be traveling less in the future, unless there is some magical technological breakthrough, and I don't see that on the horizon.

Spiegel: That's a grim outlook.

Ott: It is, but what part of the population has actually flown, worldwide? Only 1.5 percent. We just can't continue in the future with our current lifestyles. By 2030, international aviation will produce the same amount of emissions that the United States does now. That's a quarter of all emissions and that's not sustainable in a situation where we need to reduce our current emissions by 75 percent. Besides, we're going to run out of fuel. Our resources will diminish in the coming decades at a time when hunger for energy grows dramatically in China and other parts of Asia. Eventually, it will just be impossible to fly - normal flights will become as expensive as flying with the Concorde.

What we face is an unprecedented challenge: Compared to what we're up against now, the nuclear threat was tiny. What we're faced with now is as destructive as a nuclear war, but unlike the Cold War. There is no individual here with his hand on a launch button. Billions of people have to take individual decisions about what they're going to do - and it's running up against vested interests. It has massive implications for the way we think about our economies and it runs up against the limits of a capitalist society. Our choices now are simple: hope for a technological miracle or try to steer the tanker a little bit from its current path and hope that that's sufficient. Mankind is, for the first time, in the position to actually do this, to consciously steer a different course. We've never had or even been able to do that before - but now we can and it's our biggest challenge. Nature does not forgive.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/E022105A.shtml

halva

03-01-2005, 08:07 PM

Boomer Chick

03-01-2005, 09:35 PM

Just before OI.KI.A's Feb 12th demonstration (part of the international mobilisation) in support of the coming-into-force of Kyoto, I ran into one of our American acquaintances at the metro station. He is a chemmie, formerly of the circle of Carnicom, and he has addressed an OI.KI.A meeting on the subject of chemtrails.

I invited him to come to the demonstration and he said he would. There was no need for his presence to be conspicuous. Finally he didn't show up. He sent me an e-mail afterwards explaining that what we were doing was all nonsense anyway because global warming is the result of solar activity. He quoted some information about the icecaps of Mars melting, etc. etc.

Well, it just might be bigger than what we're all focusing on. If everyone could accept, without panic, that the sun has heated up or is going through a cycle we're not familiar with due to our narrow vantage point in time, we could adapt. Of course there's no reason to assume that reducing green house gases won't help -- they will -- and all the more necessary to help cool the earth. But I do think that vocanoes will probably respond to the sun and do the cooling job, anyway. Remember the dinosaurs? Well, no longer do many scientists hold to the theory of the astroid -- it is now the theory of sudden climate change with huge volcanic eruptions and the dinosaurs just weren't able to adapt. There might have even been an axis tilt and then you have severe and sudden climate change, in an instant. Whatever happens, happens and we will still do our best to lesson the CO2 and other gases. We are like fleas on the back of a dog on our beautiful planet, Mother Earth. Our life line she is and we depend on her. I hope she forgives us and goes through her changes, gently. And of course, the almighty sun will be the ultimate orchestrator and for all we know, perhaps the center of the Milky Way Galaxy transmits energies and signals we know nothing about. So my point is, we are at the mercy of our solar system and galaxy and all we can do is attempt to adapt... and pray that there's a merciful God or benificent aliens who will save us. And hey, we all have to go sometime! It's just a matter of when. Like the Native Americans say, let's prepare that all days ahead are "good days to die." Are you ready?

BC :)

halva

03-01-2005, 09:57 PM

No.

Boomer Chick

03-02-2005, 12:49 PM

I highly recommend reading this pdf file slowly, and from beginning to end as the information informs and builds as it progresses.

http://techreports.jpl.nasa.gov/1998/98-1743.pdf

From the JPL files:

Abstract. Highenergycosmicrays may influence the formation of clouds,
and thus can have an impact on weather and climate. Cosmic rays in the solar wind
are incident on the magnetosphere boundary and are then transmitted through the
magnetosphere and atmosphere to reach the uppertroposphere. The flux to the
troposphere will depend both on the intensity and spectrum of the cosmic rays at
the outer boundary of the magnetosphere (magnetopause) and on the configuration
of the magnetosphere through which they propagate. Both the incident flux and the
magnetospheric transmission have changed systematically during this century due to
systematic changes in the solar wind. We show that, early in the century the region of
the troposphere open to cosmic ray precipitation was usually confined to a relatively
small high-latitude region. As the century progressed there was a systematic increase in
the size of this region by over 7". We suggest that these changes contributed to climate
change during the last 100 years.

Excerpts:

Both galactic and solar cosmic rays affect the Earth. However, only the galactic
cosmic rays can cause climate change. This is because solar cosmic rays are sporadic
events. These events are well known for their effects on the ionosphere and on spacecraft
systems. These deleterious effects are due to the large fluxes at energies greater than
10-30 MeV/nucl. The particle energy spectrum is very steep and the fluxes of particles
with energy > 100 MeV/nucl is relatively small. The number of such events, but not
their intensity, varies as the sunspot number [Feynman and Garrett, 1988 1. The
number of events per year with E > 100 MeV/nucl that significantly exceed the galactic
cosmic ray background is less than 5 during high solar activity [Feynman e t . a!., 19931.
Thus these events are too weak and sporadic to be involved in climate change.
In this paper we discuss the time evolution of cosmic ray penetration to the Earth
atmosphere during this century. We find systematic changes and suggest that these are
a contributing factor to the climate change during this century.

_______________________________________

Cosmic galactic rays! Something we can't control, obviously, and yet should be aware. Nice to know scientists are working on this. Interesting that I had to do a scientific search to find this.

BC

jayreynolds

03-02-2005, 07:28 PM

Interesting that I had to do a scientific search to find this.
BC

If a person spends most of his time hanging out with a belief group, the chances are that much that goes against the belief will not be discussed. You recognized this about CTC, and even suggested it be codified. The paper you mention is old, but was being passed around GW skeptics back when.
More:
http://star.arm.ac.uk/~epb/paper1.html

Some of the cosmic rays once thought to have a galactic origin may actually be from cometary collisions out near Pluto. If so, the periodicity of comet movement(think Halley's comet) could account for the variance in cosmic ray flux seen during this century, and correlate to recent cloud changes.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/comet_collisions_021105.html

The facts about clouds really aren't fully known, despite what the GW hysteriacs("The science is settled"-Algore) would have you believe. If you get the real scientists out and under a microscope, they will start hedging their bets and admit uncertainty.

Boomer Chick

03-02-2005, 08:50 PM

If a person spends most of his time hanging out with a belief group, the chances are that much that goes against the belief will not be discussed. You recognized this about CTC, and even suggested it be codified. The paper you mention is old, but was being passed around GW skeptics back when.
More:
http://star.arm.ac.uk/~epb/paper1.html

I only hung out in CTC group for a number of months and independently researched such topics as the Yellowstone Volcano, 911 theories, and other issues of politics. I had never belonged to a climate board or a chemtrail board where that was all they talked about. I belong to a yahoo board where we explored and continue to do so, all kinds of topics, including science and we have a great group of diverse personalities on that board who stimulate opposing views. You're right about people who confine themselves, especially in the scientific realm.

Actually, the paper I used is quite different than the paper you offer in the above link. The paper I cited gave a definate correlation to the earth's median temperature in reference to cosmic rays and measured the latitudes of the most affected zones through time showing their change in shape and southerly movement. Overall, it gave the picture that through time the cosmic ray situation has worked upon the cloud system and that warming has occured in direct proportion. They did nothing regarding measuring various clouds at varous atmospheric levels and the paper was quite confined to a much smaller number of inputs. Your link above allows for impinging data inputs regarding humidity and other factors, includes levels and types of clouds and it just about refutes itself at the end. Not at all the same study, related, of course, but quite different.

Some of the cosmic rays once thought to have a galactic origin may actually be from cometary collisions out near Pluto. If so, the periodicity of comet movement(think Halley's comet) could account for the variance in cosmic ray flux seen during this century, and correlate to recent cloud changes.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/comet_collisions_021105.html

Interesting about the cosmic rays! Enjoyed it ! :)

The facts about clouds really aren't fully known, despite what the GW hysteriacs("The science is settled"-Algore) would have you believe. If you get the real scientists out and under a microscope, they will start hedging their bets and admit uncertainty.

I agree with that, but not to label anyone person as representative of any side in the ongoing scientific debate. Regardless of the solar and galactic energies impinging upon our planet, the need to reduce our carbon emissions and other harmful to humans, animals, and plants emissions is still important. If it is true that the our atmosphere and planet itself is heating up due to solar and galactic energies and forces, all the more reason to clean up our collective messes for their interaction in a warmer medium will only increase the problems. Do you agree with this?

BC

jayreynolds

03-03-2005, 04:00 AM

I I agree with that, but not to label anyone person as representative of any side in the ongoing scientific debate. Regardless of the solar and galactic energies impinging upon our planet, the need to reduce our carbon emissions and other harmful to humans, animals, and plants emissions is still important. If it is true that the our atmosphere and planet itself is heating up due to solar and galactic energies and forces, all the more reason to clean up our collective messes for their interaction in a warmer medium will only increase the problems. Do you agree with this? BC

One of the goals of engineering is to accomplish things with minimal waste, and as efficiently as possible. Time has shown that technology can do this if applied sufficiently and with intelligence. Some mistakes are made, but then great leaps forward are also reached. It is my opinion that our planet's systems are very forgiving regarding changes, and not at all subject to 'runaway' whatever due to 'forcings'. Those who see things on this earth as unchanging, immutable, or sacred regarding change are ignorant of natural history and utopian/arcadian in belief. Many opportunities exist to improve how we live, and our way of life has always gotten better in the long run. Many pitfalls are set by those who would like to have us fear change, and offer a utopia which can never exist. I don't trust people who would control my activities by fear. It smacks of advertising and ploys to con me into buy something I don't need.

I have no problem with watching the beginning of the end of the age of hydrocarbons, but realize it is for future generations to accomplish with technology yet to be perfected. It'sa big job, and I'm sure it will happen, just as the steam age, the wind/water age, the horse age, the iron age, and the stone age did. Just don't rush to judgement and make a false move too soon. Once everything is ready, we'll move on.

halva

03-03-2005, 04:44 AM

I don't trust people who would control my activities by fear.

Yeah. Know how you feel.

Boomer Chick

03-03-2005, 08:54 AM

Jay --

Nicely expressed. I asked you if you agreed that the necessity to clean up and control our own "waste" products is even more pressing in the consideration of general planetary warming, no matter what the cause.

Now I will comment upon most of your related thoughts. You said:
"One of the goals of engineering is to accomplish things with minimal waste, and as efficiently as possible. Time has shown that technology can do this if applied sufficiently and with intelligence." I agree with this as far as it is reflected as such in reality. The problem with your statement rests in the real and actual evidence that many running businesses and responsible for technologies have indeed NOT controlled their wastes properly and many continue to fail to control them adequately. The wastes themselves through various kinds of technologies have polluted the waters, the earth, and the air with various carcinogens and chemicals. This is a fact. Although many polluted areas have been cleaned up in the past, the ongoing pursuit of clean and controlled waste-handling procedures still concern most citizens, especially those directly affected. And of course the trend concerning the big picture on this is that through citizen and legal systems, through legislation prompted by concerned citizens, the intelligence factor regarding technology has increased. All factions have actually worked together in a grand synergism not inherently conscious or devoid of contentiousness to create a higher awareness regarding waste management. "Intelligence" alone in the engineering field has not been the only factor. In some cases, engineers have indeed been intelligent from beginning to end and of course they are applauded.

You conditioned the above statement with a broad overview to which I do agree especially in the historical sense: "Some mistakes are made, but then great leaps forward are also reached. I would also qualify and remind you that not all incidences of failed waste management of any kind are directly attributable to "mistakes" which are unintentional consequences and I would throw in the consequences based on igorance. In many cases, the decision-makers involved have purposefully avoided their own self control with the knowledge that they should control, but based the decision not to control due to short term goal thinking -- profit considerations. This is where the pressure of the law comes in and the synergism of concerned citizens/law acts upon the individual decision-making process of those in charge of various technologies.

"It is my opinion that our planet's systems are very forgiving regarding changes, and not at all subject to 'runaway' whatever due to 'forcings'. Those who see things on this earth as unchanging, immutable, or sacred regarding change are ignorant of natural history and utopian/arcadian in belief. " Certainly you would regard those scientists who attempt to learn about the various planetary cycles and rebalancing systems as motivated to support your stated opinion. As yet, the final conclusion has not been determined regarding our human waste products verses the earth's warming, but most scientists are leaning in the direction of direct impact and impact over time. Any biology student realizes the "beaker effect" regarding bio effects of waste in a closed system. Any addition to the closed system that affects the balance of that system and prevents the redistribution of matter and energy thus affecting either build up or depletion of life-supporting factors is considered quite important to all who value life itself. Of course, this is not to say that systems are "unchanging and immutable", let alone "sacred." The goal is therefore life preservation which we've also learned involves respecting the biosphere we inhabit and in that respect, learn how it operates and seek to preserve its integrity for our benefit. We live in a synergistic system and are part of it. The synergism between our waste products and the biosphere we inhabit is a subject of study at this moment and in the recent past, and an ongoing source of understanding for all who make decisions regarding our long term species' survival. The paradigm of realizing we are indeed the caretakers of our planet and that our presence indeed impacts our environment is a new and recent revelation, historically speaking.

As we shrunk the planet in terms of communications and transportation, and grew our populations, industrialized and expanded, we began to realize our impact on it and on us. There's absolutely no fear or assumptions of fear involved. It's a realization of fact and biology. In terms of our impact upon the atmosphere and ozone hole, it's again, a realization through science that we may indeed be impacting with our waste products various atmospheric layers. We are studying it now. So through technology we may be able to transition into a new energy age with grace and with no fear. But without action or effort to decrease all effects that impinge upon the natural order, we would be remiss and irresponsible regarding our future humanity and the health of the biosphere.

"I have no problem with watching the beginning of the end of the age of hydrocarbons, but realize it is for future generations to accomplish with technology yet to be perfected.

We cannot as present inhabitants wait for the future generations to do the work involved in understanding and mitigating our contributions to future effects. Many contributory gases, chemicals, and ground pollutants reveal themselves as having affected humans and animals, even weather, much later than the moment they were produced. And MANY of their effects present themselves in the now and in the short term. So what we do and don't do now is directly impacting upon us now, in the future, and future generations. NO, we cannot sit back and watch and leave it up to future generations. It is our responsibility through awareness, science, and individual choices, as well as international agreements, to leave the planet as healthy and more healthy as a synergystic system than when we arrived. Leaving it all to future generations to clean up and balance is simply not fair and it assumes that systems regardless of various impacting factors ALWAYS rebalance themselves for the good of all. This is not the case as our observations of nature and the biological and biosphere systems teach us.

Yes, I don't like those who promote fear, either. And this can be seen on many fronts. So we must all attend to provable and supportive science and prudent and responsible action and activities. Unfortunately, funding projects for assistance in waste-responsibility often involves a legal/political system. And that's another reality of our lives. If every CEO in every company held the paradigm within his/her mind that responsible waste-management is an essential and life-preserving MUST, politics would not have to come into play. With the knowledge of the balancing of the CO2 sinks, like forests and flora of all kinds, we as a species should be preserving such natural balances, but then again, without creating new building materials and abandoning wood, the logging will continue. Rainforests suffer the same consequence and we've discussed all this before. It's knowledge and the active respect of that knowledge regarding our synergism with the planetary bio-system that will insure our suvival. I have hope, too, that our plans and activities now will help those in the future to continue the caretaking process.

And the BIG IF's in all of this loom over us all. It's an intelligent observation as well. Will we as a species make mistakes that are planetary in scope and ruin our balancing systems due to technological experimentation? Will impinging cosmic forces and energies produce a cataclysmic planetary change beyond anything we can do as humans? These two possibilities might not be comfortable to contemplate and are not presented to provoke fear. They are intelligent considerations regarding the larger solar and galactic system we inhabit and realizing that some technologies might interact with our system in a much more profound and disastrous way than most could even imagine. We as citizens cannot hope to control the unknown operations of a small group of humans, nor can we control much larger cosmic forces. All we can do is attend to our spiritual pupose for being, and do what we can do as a species while we're here to responsibly care for our health and the health of the balancing natural systems in which we inhabit. And in this responsibility, peace, rather than war, would be the survival imperative.

BC

Boomer Chick

03-08-2005, 01:18 PM

A Look at Colorado's future in a warmer climate and a projection to other high altitude mountain communities globally.

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20050306/NEWS/103060008

Might warming wilt the mountain way of life?

ALLEN BEST
special to the daily
March 6, 2005

In summer, the hillsides above Crested Butte look like a painting by Claude Monet. Reds, yellows and blues are brilliantly dabbed everywhere on a canvas of green. This is the wildflower capital of Colorado.

But on a small plot of land several miles from Crested Butte, at the old mining hamlet of Gothic, is a peek into a less colorful future. There, on a knoll within the grounds of the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, an experiment is being conducted that attempts to predict how global warming will change mountain meadows during the next 50 to 100 years.

The experiment is far from complete. But John Harte, a professor from the University of California at Berkeley, says it's already evident that these meadows and probably many others near mountain towns will probably lose a few hues in coming decades.

"One thing we can project from this experiment is that in under 50 to 100 years of warming, we are likely to see our meadows looking differently," says Harte, who has been supervising the experiment for 14 years. "They will be less flower-laden, less colorful and replaced by plants that you associate more with lower elevations, sagebrush in particular."

In other words, the hills around Crested Butte will become more like those around Gunnison. Ski towns will look more like ranch towns. Upvalley will look more like downvalley.

Harte's experiment near Crested Butte is but one small part of the big picture that is now being assembled about how higher temperatures will affect mountains. Mountains, because they are so sensitive to changes in temperature, offer early indications of what may come to pass around the world.

"Sometimes, trying to get the details right on global warming is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa with a 4-inch house brush," says Dr. Jerry Mahlman, a climate scientist from Boulder who spent more than 30 years in climate modeling at Princeton University.

How long before good computer models for regions will be developed? A decade, replies Mahlman, "although the guys down the hall would probably yell at me."

Warmer temperatures are the only odds-on favorite. Far less certain is how much precipitation will change. Some models predict that Sun Valley and Jackson Hole will likely receive more precipitation, while the Colorado Rockies will get less.

But even if Colorado's rain and snowfall don't decline as temperatures rise, higher evaporation rates could impact moisture levels. Less snow on the ground means less solar radiation reflected back into the atmosphere. Instead, the sun's heat would be absorbed by the darker soil and plants.

In turn, more heat on the Earth's surface will further raise temperatures and melt more snow.

Evidence in hand

Already, anecdotal evidence of weather that could be a symptom of climate change is found almost every season. The temperature dipped below zero only seven times last winter - part of at least a short-term trend of warmer winter nights.

Aspen's environmental affairs office reports that the frost-free season has expanded by 22 days since reliable record-keeping began at the city's water treatment plant in 1949. Most of the gain in warmth has come in the spring.

Elsewhere in the Rockies, marmots are emerging from hibernation an average 23 days earlier than they did in the late 1970s. That coincides with an increase in average May temperatures of nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the same time period, according to a National Academy of Sciences report.

Some evidence suggests the higher the elevation, the greater the change. Support for this theory has been found in an atrophying glacier in Wyoming's Wind River Range. Near the summit of 13,745-foot Frémont Peak, ice cores taken from a glacier show alpine temperatures have risen more than 6 degrees in the past 40 years, a rate of change far greater than what's found at lower elevations.

This disproportionate increase might also explain the disappearance of pikas from several mountain ranges in the Great Basin. Pushed higher by increased temperatures, some ecologists theorize these small mammals have no place to go.

Vegetation is also marching higher. In Yellowstone National Park, the whitebark pine is moving up toward the summits of mountains. That changes the scenery, but also affects animals. Grizzly bears feed heavily upon the seeds of the whitebarks.

No time to adapt

Changes in vegetation will produce changes in animals in many ways, according to a recent study published in Yale's Journal of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. The study focused on projected changes at eight parks in the United States, including Glacier, Yellowstone, and Yosemite National Parks.

Warmer temperatures, says Oswald Schmitz, professor of population and community ecology, will cause an influx of new species into the parks. Schmitz likened the migration caused by this changing climate to the human migration during the Great Depression, when waves of people fled to cities, putting pressure on social services, housing and jobs.

"There's no guarantee the ecosystem won't simply collapse," Schmitz said.

While plants and animals have adapted to climate change before, the problem is the rate of change being forced by the spewing of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

"Animal and plant species don't have enough evolutionary time to adapt," Schmitz said.

These changes are illustrated in a study projecting effects of global warming in Rocky Mountain National Park. Elk populations might actually expand if global warming produces more summer rains.

But white-tailed ptarmigan, an above-treeline species that is already struggling, will probably die off, according to the study by scientists from Colorado State University. Warmer summers depress the success of nesting, as well as survival of adults of this species with an affinity for cold climes.

Tundra will also shrink. It would take centuries, but the scientists envision the vast expanses eventually being replaced by trees.

As for the merchants in the gateway community of Estes Park, hotter and longer summers will mean more customers - to a point. A too-hot summer becomes a bust for merchants.

Scientists say there will be both winners and loser in the early stages of global warming. In the long term, they say, everybody will lose.

A big deal
Back in the meadows of Crested Butte, John Harte's heat lamps are strung five feet above the ground, gently warming the plants and soil, day and night, winter and summer.

The lamps increase the soil temperature about 4 degrees Fahrenheit - a relatively modest estimate for the global warming expected later this century.

A 4-degree change doesn't sound like much, Harte says, until you consider that the last time ice sheets spilled into New York and Wisconsin, the temperature was only 15 degrees colder.

Harte's study suggests that computer models very likely understate the warming that could be ahead. Because, just as the climate affects the ecosystem, the ecosystem can affect the climate. The sagebrush creeping in absorbs less carbon than the wildflowers, leaving more carbon dioxide in the air. More carbon dioxide in the air traps more heat.

This discovery about feedback, Harte said, "is the most exciting thing that is going on scientifically" at his experiment near Crested Butte.

Scientifically exciting, yes, but not a happy discovery for people who love summer's gaudy show of wildflowers.

Boomer Chick

03-08-2005, 01:37 PM

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1318067.htm

Broadcast: 07/03/2005

Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight
Reporter: Tony Jones

TONY JONES: Now to our guest. Author and journalist Ross Gelbspan has taken on the global-warming sceptics in a series of books and articles. His latest book is called The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-Up and The Prescription. I spoke to him just a short time ago in Boston.

TONY JONES: Ross Gelbspan, thank you for joining us.

ROSS GELBSPAN: My pleasure, Tony. Thank you for having me on.

TONY JONES: Now, no matter how many scientists or governments sign up to the idea that the planet is getting dangerously hotter, you still find there's a hard core of committed sceptics, many of them reputable scientists like Professor Richard Lindzen from MIT. Can I ask you first: what if they're right?

ROSS GELBSPAN: If they're right and catastrophic future, then we still, I think, would be doing the right thing by changing away from coal and oil to clean energy. That would clear the air, it would do away with a lot of lung diseases, it would create lots and lots of jobs, especially in developing countries, so I really see it as a no-lose situation. If they're right, we are still going to run out of oil in another 40, 50 years, the world will be, and we'll still need to make this transition, albeit without the same amount of urgency.

TONY JONES: The sceptics try to make the point that global warming is nothing but a theory. I mean, can you counter that? Is it more than a theory now, at this point?

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, first of all, step back for one second, and what we know about the climate comes from more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries, reporting to the UN in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. This is about as close to truth as we can get. If you want to go beyond the science and look at the very visible impacts, we can see that we are heating the deep oceans, we have reversed the carbon cycle by 400,000 years, we're seeing a big increase of violent weather all over the world, we've altered the timing of the seasons. All over the world, fish, insects birds, plants and animals are migrating toward the poles in search of temperature stability. So if you put together all the evidence, the scientific evidence, the field evidence, it really seems like a very open-and-shut case.

TONY JONES: Why, then, are the sceptics so passionate about the arguments they're putting forward, and they are putting them forward with incredible passion. Richard Lindzen, who we just mentioned, for example, compares global warming to eugenics as an abuse of science.

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, Mr Lindzen does, but Mr Lindzen is really sort of out there on a limb. I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world.

TONY JONES: Is it also becoming a little hip to be sceptical? I mean, we've now seen Lindzen's influence creeping into popular culture. We have, for example, Michael Crichton's new novel, State of Fear, in which the hero is a global warming sceptic who roams the world for a secret US agency defeating evil environmentalists. I mean, this is so turning on its head the kind of popular mythology that we've seen in the past that you wonder where it's coming from.

ROSS GELBSPAN: You do. I think Dr Lindzen, with whom I've met, has just a streak of contrarianism in his personality, and it could be that Michael Crichton does, too. I don't know Michael Crichton. I do know that the science that's advanced in Michael Crichton's book is really bogus and it simply does not hold up to examination at all. There's a very good web site that a number of climate scientists put together called realclimate.org to show where all the flaws in Crichton's thinking are.

TONY JONES: One of the things the sceptics have in common is an incredible passion, it seems to me, and they seem to match the passion of some environmentalists. Recently we had on our program President Putin's reputed economic adviser, Andre Illarionov, who claims that global warming science is nothing but propaganda and the scientists who put it forward are a dangerous totalitarian sect. Now, how influential are people like Illarionov?

ROSS GELBSPAN: I gather he's not that influential, even in Russia, because President Putin did sign on to the Kyoto protocol. I know he is a darling of the right-wing institutes like the Kato Institute and others in the United States that are fighting against action on global warming. But in the big picture, I really don't see them having very much influence on what's going on, especially with the world having signed Kyoto and moved forward. Again, to put this in context, if I can, while the US is dragging its heels because the Bush administration is certainly lined up with coal and oil interests, look at what's happening in Europe. Holland has just finished a plan to cut her emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years; Tony Blair has committed the UK to cuts of 60 per cent in 50 years; the Germans have committed to cuts of 50 per cent in 50 years; and about two weeks ago, President Chirac of France called on the industrial world to cut their emissions by 75 per cent in 45 years, and clearly, these leaders would not be taking these wrenching policy pronouncements if they did not - if they had any real confusion about the science.

TONY JONES: Whose advice, then, is the Bush White House taking on major scientific issues like this, and in particular on global warming? What is the US Academy of Sciences saying, for example, and do they have any influence in the White House?

ROSS GELBSPAN: The National Academy of Sciences, it's very interesting. Several years ago, President Bush said he did not want to accept the findings of this intergovernmental panel because it represented foreign science, so he wanted the United States' own scientific body to weigh in. The National Academy of Sciences then came out with a report saying not only is the IPCC right, they're actually underestimating some of the impacts that we'll be feeling down the road. So clearly, the President did not take that advice. The President's policies on climate and energy are essentially being dictated by Exxon-Mobil, Peabody Coal and some of the other large coal and oil interests. For example, the previous head of the intergovernmental panel on climate change was Dr Robert Watson. He was an Australian-born scientist. Watson was very, very highly regarded, both for his own scientific expertise and the way he ran this whole IPCC, and when President Bush was elected, Exxon-Mobil sent him a memo saying, "Please get rid of Watson. We don't want Watson in there." In fact, President Bush decided not to support Watson's re-election and he got bumped out of that job. So that's a quick example of the kind of influence that we're seeing of the oil and coal industries in the Bush administration.

TONY JONES: What do you make of the argument that's going on within the environmental movement that the situation is so pressing, we are so close to a tipping point, that the only way of actually saving the planet is to move quickly to nuclear energy on a large scale?

(clipped) but quite worth the read!

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1318067.htm

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

03-08-2005, 02:21 PM

http://www.newstarget.com/005305.html

Tuesday, March 08, 2005 Commentary

Scientists says rapidly melting ice caps prove global warming is real

Studies examining ocean temperatures and the Arctic ice cap have determined that global warming is real and it is definitely caused by humans. Scientists have built models of other possible explanations for global warming, but all of them have proven to be insufficient to produce climate comparable to the current scale. Furthermore, these climate changes will cause massive changes in ocean currents, possibly causing wholesale changes in worldwide weather.

News summary:
Source: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7667385

A parcel of studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts said on Thursday.

New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well underway, said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.
His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global warming is occurring and is caused by people.
His team used U.S. government models of solar warming and volcanic warming, just to see if they could account for the measurements they made.

And the effects will be felt far and wide.

"The debate is what are we going to do about it."

_________________________________________

Yes, I agree. At this point a debate is futile and useless. This energy should be turned to answering: "What do we do now?"

What choices will you make?

BC :shock: ;)

Boomer Chick

03-08-2005, 04:58 PM

For you, Halva... thought you would appreciate:

http://www.globalwarming.net/

It's an organization you could join, if you haven't already.

BC :)

jayreynolds

03-08-2005, 06:11 PM

Yes, I agree. At this point a debate is futile and useless. This energy should be turned to answering: "What do we do now?"
What choices will you make?
Hey, according to Wayne Hall, they are spraying stuff out of airliners to give us a sunscreen.
Sounds like the problem is under control!
hey!

Boomer Chick

03-08-2005, 06:32 PM

Hey, according to Wayne Hall, they are spraying stuff out of airliners to give us a sunscreen.
Sounds like the problem is under control!
hey!

TEE! HEE!! Actually, the little purported and not substantiated good that they do is far outweighed by the heat they keep in! And who was it who said the cirrus clouds they produce are fluffy and condusive to creating precip?
Quite the opposite!

Just because someone doesn't see things the way I do, doesn't mean they can't join some organization and learn something, heh?

Even the filtering aspects of aviation-created cirrus don't do as well as cumulous clouds which plain old cloud seeding would help produce.

SAVE THE REDWOODS.... BTW!!! Hehehe!

SNORT!

How's that saddle feelin'?

I tell you, that oinking pig on the other thread really must clean up his pen... he's unbelievably whacked out and although I have compassion for the mentally ill, it really seems a waste of everyone's time to allow him to post here. Can you honestly be afraid that his ideas and paranoid delusions would actually be believed by anyone anywhere else on the net? Now answer me honestly!

BC ;)

BC

Boomer Chick

03-08-2005, 09:14 PM

From an inbox letter from Worldwatch :

http://www.worldwatch.org/index.php

Dear Friend of Worldwatch:

When you work for a small institute grappling with large, global issues, it is especially rewarding to hear that your work is having a clear impact on the decisions of key governments. When we received the e-mail attached below, everyone in the office cheered.

Last week, the Chinese legislature approved a law aimed at increasing the country's use of renewable energy by mandating that power-grid operators get a portion of their electricity from local renewable sources and by providing financial inducements such as specified payments for renewable power, tax incentives, discounted loans, and a national development fund. It is a historic development to have the world's most populous country and largest consumer of coal beginning to seriously promote the use of wind, solar, bio-energy and other renewable resources.

Policy advice from Worldwatch researchers contributed to the drafting of the new law. Last year, we met with two delegations of Chinese officials who were seeking our advice on their renewable energy plans. One of those officials had our policy recommendations translated and forwarded to a number of interested parties in China. We also worked with other organizations on joint memos that provided additional comments on various drafts of the law.

When it takes effect on January 1, 2006, this law—the first of its kind for China—will be a huge step toward fulfilling China's pledge last year to increase the country's renewable energy production from under 1 percent of the total to about 10 percent by 2010.

It couldn't happen too soon. Fast-developing China is now second only to the United States in emissions of carbon dioxide—though, as the world's most populous country, it ranks far lower on a per capita basis.

In order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and slow climate change, it is essential that China play a leadership role, particularly since in the past, inaction by China has been used by some politicians as a reason not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

We at Worldwatch will work hard in the years ahead to help China and other countries move forward on energy and other critical issues. But we can only do so with the generous support of people like yourself who are genuinely concerned about a more sustainable world for future generations. Won't you please click on the link below and send your gift today?

Here's the e-mail. Many thanks again.

Christopher Flavin
President

From a letter received by Worldwatch Institute on March 1, 2005 from Mr. Ren Dongming, People's Republic of China:

Dear All,

I'm so happy and proud to tell all of you, my dear friends, that the China Renewable Energy Law has been passed by The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in Beijing yesterday. I don't think there is any other news more valuable that could make me contact you now. At this moment, I cannot help but recall every day and night for the past two years, the hard work of all the team members. You, my dear friends, all provided us great assistance when you gave us more constructive comments for the law draft. It is you who have given us confidence, and let us keep on working towards today, with a good result as we had expected.

Here, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, I want to say Thank you, my good friends, thank you all for your help during the legislation of the Renewable Energy Law of People's Republic of China, passed yesterday, February 28, 2005.

Best regards and all best wishes to all of you.

Ren Dongming

Renewable Energy Development Center of the Energy Research Institute National Reform and Development Commission, People's Republic of China

halva

03-08-2005, 10:15 PM

TEE! HEE!! Actually, the little purported and not substantiated good that they do is far outweighed by the heat they keep in! And who was it who said the cirrus clouds they produce are fluffy and condusive to creating precip?
Quite the opposite!

Just because someone doesn't see things the way I do, doesn't mean they can't join some organization and learn something, heh?

BC I appreciate your attempts to maintain equilibrium between two sides which I argue have no place even trying to coexist in the same discourse.

But I think it is best allowing the real climate scientists to talk about whether mitigating measures against climate change that have been proposed would or would not be effective.

The point to make about Reynolds' intervention is that it sows confusion. Raynolds pretends (ironically) to assume that if mitigation measures were adopted they would be effective, and would solve the climate change problem.

This begs all the questions and it is illegitmate as a style of discourse. One should make one's assumptions clear and argue on the basis of them. Not smuggle in other assumptions and then use them as a basis for irony. (The assumptions in question of course always being those that are prevalent in the 'conventional wisdom'.)

Climate scientists, for some reason, typically argue that aerosol spraying for climate mitigation would not be effective and that it therefore could not be happening (presumably because only effective things could be happening). Raynolds turns these assumptions on their head.

His intervention is mischievous. Deliberately so.

Being a deliberately mischief-maker is a worse offence than being deluded. Deliberately mischievous interventions are introduced in order to maintain constellations of power favourable to the person introducing them.

BC, you don't stand up to Raynolds in this respect. It is your worst sin, obliging me to take on the role of being your conscience.

halva

03-09-2005, 12:22 AM

I tell you, that oinking pig on the other thread really must clean up his pen... he's unbelievably whacked out and although I have compassion for the mentally ill, it really seems a waste of everyone's time to allow him to post here. Can you honestly be afraid that his ideas and paranoid delusions would actually be believed by anyone anywhere else on the net? Now answer me honestly!

I've privately e-mailed Mike. Posts dedicated to criticizing other board members are not acceptable board behaviors.

???!???

Boomer Chick

03-09-2005, 03:51 PM

Are you blind, Halva?

Jet Fuel components:

http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/4_at_fuel_comp.shtm

Proposal for reducing air craft particulate emissions:

http://www.serdp.org/research/CP/CP-1126.pdf

Experiment to reduce emissions through catalytic reformulation of jet fuel: (didn't work)

http://www.stormingmedia.us/34/3402/A340204.html

__________________________________

Various jet engine exhaust studies:

http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords/jet_engine_exhaust.html

___________________________________

Way back last year, NASA realized the problem with climate change and aircraft emissions:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04140_clouds_climate.html

Gretchen Cook-Anderson
Headquarters, Washington
(Phone: 202/358-0836)

Chris Rink/Julia Cole
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.
(Phone: 757/864-6786/4052)

April 27, 2004
RELEASE : 04-140

Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate

NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.

"This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect," said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The study was published April 15 in the Journal of Climate. "During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady," he added.

"This study demonstrates that human activity has a visible and significant impact on cloud cover and, therefore, on climate. It indicates that contrails should be included in climate change scenarios," Minnis said.

Minnis determined the observed one percent per decade increase in cirrus cloud cover over the United States is likely due to air traffic-induced contrails. Using published results from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (New York) general circulation model, Minnis and his colleagues estimated contrails and their resulting cirrus clouds would increase surface and lower atmospheric temperatures by 0.36 to 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. Weather service data reveal surface and lower atmospheric temperatures across North America rose by almost 0.5 degree Fahrenheit per decade between 1975 and 1994.

Minnis worked with colleagues Kirk Ayers, Rabi Palinkonda, and Dung Phan from Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., of Hampton, Va. They used 25 years of global surface observations of cirrus clouds, temperature and humidity records from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis dataset. They confirmed the cirrus trends with 13 years of satellite data from NASA's International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project.

Both air traffic and cirrus coverage increased during the period of warming despite no changes in the NCEP humidity at jet cruise altitudes over the United States. By contrast, humidity at flight altitudes decreased over other land areas, such as Asia, and was accompanied by less cirrus coverage, except over Western Europe, where air traffic is very heavy.

Cirrus coverage also rose in the North Pacific and North Atlantic flight corridors. The trends in cirrus cover and warming over the United States were greatest during winter and spring, the same seasons when contrails are most frequent. These results, along with findings from earlier studies, led to the conclusion that contrails caused the increase in cirrus clouds.

"This study indicates that contrails already have substantial regional effects where air traffic is heavy, such as over the United States. As air travel continues growing in other areas, the impact could become globally significant," Minnis said.

Humidity is the amount of water vapor in the air and determines how long contrails remain in the atmosphere. Contrails that persist for an extended period of time are most likely to impact the climate.

Contrails form high in the atmosphere when the mixture of water vapor in the aircraft exhaust and the air condenses and freezes. Persisting contrails can spread into extensive cirrus clouds that tend to warm the Earth, because they reflect less sunlight than the amount of heat they trap. The balance between Earth's incoming sunlight and outgoing heat drives climate change.

NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research. NASA's Earth Science Enterprise is dedicated to understanding the Earth as an integrated system and applying Earth System Science to improve prediction of climate, weather, and natural hazards using the unique vantage point of space.

For information about this research on the Internet, visit:
http://www.larc.nasa.gov/

For information about NASA on the Internet, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html

______________________________________________

I'm now around page 20 of the previous threads on your started question "IT's not nice...", which was also a hokey introduction on your (Halva) part, and frankly, you are the most vituperate of all the posters and the most personally slamming! Gaiacom is second, and your psuedonym, Likopodaus, or whatever your/his name was.... also quite flaming. Amy or Amber comes in 4th. Jay, second to last, and last, FS. You couldn't argue or debate your way out of a wet hat! What I said about you and your posts when I arrived here is even more true!

BC

foot_soldier

03-09-2005, 04:00 PM

Let's get something straight here. I don't "slam" unless I'm being attacked. Period. Anyone who knows me will confirm that.

Christ, this is ridiculous.

Boomer Chick

03-09-2005, 04:47 PM

FS, last means you didn't do ANY slamming! You were the most dedicated to information only and I want you to know I saw that! I'm tired of this personal slamming business and yes, I complained to the mods about IS .... it was ridiculous! And I agree! Please don't leave; you're my only other information gatherer and political buddy here!

I hope that clarifies things for you! You, like me, are curious, you want to the truth, and I know we'll both find it!

PLEASE DON'T LEAVE!!!

BC :(

Boomer Chick

03-09-2005, 07:01 PM

For those who still balk at the underlying reasons for change as anthropogenic, here's a good one for you. I continue to think that although there are cyclic planetary ages (short and long), including galactic forces and cosmic energies as well as responsive solar energies and cycles, the contribution of man's pollution cannot help matters. To throw our hands up in the air and say we're victims of cycles we can do nothing about -- would be to refuse responsibility. Whether the planet heats up or cools down, the pollution has to be controlled and we need to get off fossil fuels and their consequent emissions.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050309-010412-2370r

Report: Polar warming may be cyclical
By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Published March 9, 2005

TROMSO, Norway -- Scottish researchers have suggested the warming of the polar ice cap could be a natural, cyclical event and not the fault of global warming.

"Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic," Dr. Chad Dick at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso told The Scotsman. "I've this gut feeling that within 10 years from now we'll know for certain whether we're losing sea ice long term or whether it's coming back."

However, Dick said the research did not suggest global warming was not a reality.

"You couldn't say, 'The sea ice is coming back so therefore there's no global warming'. It's never going to be that simple," he said.

Part of his research was scouring the logbooks of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, which showed the 60 to 80-year cycle recorded.

In January, the international Climate Change Task Force warned global warming could reach a "point of no return" in 10 to 20 years by which time atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be so great, any attempt to reduce them would be futile.

______________________________________

BC

Boomer Chick

03-09-2005, 07:13 PM

Source: Penn State
Date: 2005-03-09
URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130619.htm

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

Melting Ice Important Indicator Of Global Warming
Washington, D.C. -– Surrounded by winter snow and ice, melting seems like a good thing, but, on a global scale, the melting of ice sheets and glaciers is a sign of global warming, according to a Penn State glaciologist.

"The really big picture shows change in the ice and those changes look like what we get is a world that is a little warmer," says Richard B. Alley, the Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences. "We currently do not include all these processes in the models that predict the global future.”

Summarizing published literature, Alley notes that spring snows in the Arctic have decreased without a decrease in overall precipitation. A shift in the snowy season is an indication of warming.

As seen by satellites, Arctic sea ice is smaller and sea ice thickness measured by submarines is thinner.

"For the time period with especially good records, northern sea ice clearly shows a downward trend,” says the Penn State researcher. “There may also be a downward trend in the south."

One explanation for the changes in the Arctic sea ice is a change in the circulation of the oceans and atmosphere. But the circulation change, which itself may be brought on by warming, does not seem to fully explain the changes in sea ice. Atmospheric warming may simply be causing melting.

"Mountain glaciers are typically more sensitive to temperature than other controls," says Alley. "Most mountain glaciers are getting smaller. Some are disappearing, others just shrinking."

Recent reports indicate that the large ice sheets in Antarctica and on Greenland are growing fatter in the middle due to slightly increased snow. Increased snow may be a sign of warming because warmer air holds more moisture for precipitation. In a few places on the margins of the ice, the ice sheets are getting smaller. The water from the shrinking ice sheets slightly raises ocean levels.

"Both of these changes look like some sort of response to environmental warming," says Alley.

For floating ice, warm water beneath the ice sheet and warm air both may contribute to melting. But the real problem is that changes in the ice sheets are complicated, it is not simply melting. The centers of the ice sheets change on a scale of tens of thousands of years, while the edges change in years.

"We have been modeling ice sheets using ice flow models based on local information at the center of the ice sheets," says Alley. "But the ice sheets act globally as well."

The Penn State researcher explains that the models assume that if you push on one side of the ice sheet, the far side does not move. No transfer of energy takes place through the sheet. However, this approach does not work on a floating section of the ice sheet, the ice shelves. If you push on one side, the entire sheet moves.

"We have found that if the ice shelf calved off or a section melted, that the actual ice flow movement was much faster than our current models suggest," says Alley.

Obviously, some physical processes are not in the current models and these are important to the overall picture of the ice. Even little ice shelves can be important.

"However, if we include everything, everywhere, it will take a great deal of computer power and we are not quite ready for that yet," says the Penn State researcher.

What is clear is that ice around the globe is changing and the models are not adequate to fully understand what this means for the future.

"The ice changes are best explained by warming. Now we have to decide how to make better models and how to deal with the effects of warming," says Alley.

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here.

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

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Penn State.

_________________________________________

BC

foot_soldier

03-09-2005, 08:43 PM

Re: northern latitude melting of icepack and thawing permafrost:

March 9, 2005
Thawing permafrost poses hurdles for development
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/mar/science/jp_permafrost.html

New data from the Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost (GTNP) reveal that a warming climate is accelerating thawing of the permafrost—the concrete-like frozen ground found mostly in the far Northern Hemisphere. The rising ground temperature could spell trouble for the vast new energy developments proposed for the high northern latitudes, experts say.

Tracking trends in the permafrost—soil that remains frozen for more than two years—is important because it is a sensitive record keeper of climate change, says Frederick Nelson, a physical geographer at the University of Delaware. New data from the Circumpolar Active Layer Monitoring Program, GTNP, and other monitoring programs, presented on December 13 at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, clearly show that the permafrost is warming in response to rising air temperatures in the Arctic, he says.

The changes in the permafrost have important implications for the natural gas pipeline planned in Canada’s Mackenzie River Valley in the Northwest Territories, says Chris Burn, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Northern Research Chair at Carleton University in Ottawa. The buried pipeline will carry pressurized gas, chilled to match the surrounding ground temperature. Because the pipe will travel through areas with and without permafrost, there is a risk that the pipe will be either cold or warm enough to freeze or thaw the soil. The resulting subsidence or frost heave could bend the pipe, requiring engineers to cut gas flow to prevent ruptures or institute costly repairs. Therefore, the project's engineers need to predict how permafrost responds to climate change so that they can minimize any thermal disturbance caused by the pipeline..... (continued)

Meanwhile, it's common knowledge by now that thawing permafrost in some northern Alaskan communities is destabilizing building foundations and forcing the inhabitants of some of these communites to think about relocating en masse. Melting icepack is altering the feeding areas of polar bears and seals and in some cases rendering these areas too dangerous to inhabit. And so on. In other words, actual changes are having actual impacts on both human and animal communities in this region of the planet.

***
Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost
http://www.gtnp.org/

Arctic Peoples.org
http://www.arcticpeoples.org/KeyIssues/ClimateChange/Start.html

The impacts of change

Evidence of climate change is being seen right now in indigenous communities in the Arctic. Some people outside of the Arctic assume that climate change would be a good thing for Arctic peoples, if it means that the weather will get warmer. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to be the case. Arctic peoples are well adapted to their environment, and to using the plants and animals that are adapted to the cold northern weather. As the weather gets warmer, people, plants and animals are becoming stressed.

Saami are seeing their reindeer grazing pastures change, Inuit are watching polar bears waste away because of a lack of sea ice, and peoples across the Arctic are reporting new species, particularly insects. Some communities are having to sand-bag their shorelines to try to slow down an increase in coastal erosion, while in others, buildings, pipes, and roads are slumping because the permafrost is thawing. Vital travel routes linking communities to each other and to harvesting sites are becoming dangerously unpredictable. Routes across the ice become dangerous when the ice thins, or thaws at times different from the past, and water routes can also become dangerous as water flows change..... (continued)

The person who taught me to carve in soapstone, an Inuit named Louis Anayak, made his way down to the lower 48 from Little Diomede Island (off the Seward Peninsula) in 1993. He saw the changes coming even then. He's in his late 60's now and supports himself by carving and selling Inuit fetishes.

halva

03-09-2005, 09:11 PM

Halva, you are the most vituperate of all the posters and the most personally slamming! !

And I have also never tried to contact the moderators to get anyone kicked off. I may have made one brief and half-hearted attempt somewhere way back.

And I have never posted here or anywhere else under any pseudonym other than halva.

BC, your arrival here has been a hugely positive development. I recognize your capacities for research and presentation of information. And you have a phenomenal and valuable capacity for personal engagement.

The point that I was making has entirely to do with your orientation to Raynolds.

Boomer Chick

03-10-2005, 11:37 AM

Great posts, FS! So thankful for your contributions and your sharing about your Inuit friend! Carving in soapstone... what a wonderful creative hobby ! :D

Halva, things are changing now so let's get back to the purpose of the threads, OK? I am an independent agent, as I said before, and relate fairly with all others. There should be no threat to you in my equal treatment of ANY others. Truth and getting to the truth is a free and open discussion process. The personal is now giving way to the more focused pursuit of truth in these threads. Let's just do that!

Do you have any articles pertaining to Climate Change? Global warming?

BC ;)

foot_soldier

03-10-2005, 09:16 PM

Here are a few resources for anyone interested in keeping an eye on the stratospheric ozone situation over Europe this spring:

1/2/2005
European health threatened by low Arctic temperatures
http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/Rd/arctic.2005-02-01

Record low temperatures over the Arctic are thinning the protective ozone layer and could affect human health in some parts of the EU, the European Commission has warned.

European scientists from the EU-funded project SCOUT- 03 have found that overall temperatures in the high atmosphere are the lowest for 50 years, and warn that destruction of the protective ozone layer is substantially increased under very cold conditions. This could not only affect biodiversity, but also increase the risk of skin cancer in Scandinavia and even central European nations.

'The Arctic has experienced an extremely harsh winter. The first signs of ozone loss have now been observed, and large ozone losses are expected to occur if the cold conditions persist,' said European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik.

The Scout-03 Integrated Project, which brings together 59 partner institutions from 19 countries, is being financed under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) to study the links between stratospheric ozone and climate change in the Arctic. The aim of the project is to predict future development of the ozone layer in global climate models..... (continued)

***
Ozone Depletion in the Northern Hemisphere
http://www.metoffice.com/research/stratosphere/ozone/

See in particular the sections entitled "Ozone Measurements" and "UV Radiation and Ozone"

*** *** *** *** ***
WMO Ozone Mapping Centre
http://lap.physics.auth.gr/ozonemaps/

*** *** *** *** ***
And two UV Index resources:

Daily Solar UV Index & Five-day Forecasts : Europe
http://www.metoffice.com/weather/uv/uv_eu.html

Daily UV Index Map : United States
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvindexmap.html

halva

03-10-2005, 10:17 PM

jayreynolds

03-11-2005, 04:41 AM

On the basis of this data some of our European colleagues are predicting unprecedented levels of 'chemtrail' spraying this spring. Any comment footsoldier?

The original quote was:
"European scientists from the EU-funded project SCOUT- 03 have found that overall temperatures in the high atmosphere are the lowest for 50 years

This statement leaves the question begging-
What caused the low arctic stratospheric temperature in 1955, and what effect did it have??

answer- Jay Reynolds was born!

plus:
http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1957)014%3C0126:TASJSD%3E2.0.CO%3B2

In South Dakota:
"the 53 days of zero or below in the winter of 1955-56 was tied for the second most this century."
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/archive/1950s.htm

http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/News15/15_Labitzke.html

it is my understanding that the circumpolar wind circulation determines arctic temperatures. Sometimes the polar winds circulate in a tight vortex, which allows temperatures to remain in place and cool, while at other times the vortex breks up and allows the air to 'drain off' and become replaced by warmer air from down south.

According to the last link, above, "It is well known that the interannual variability of the stratospheric circulation during the arctic winters is very large, that very cold as well as very warm winters are observed and that it is very difficult to identify temperature trends.

The bottom line is that nothing changes like the weather, and even scaremongering has no effect on it.

jayreynolds

03-11-2005, 04:52 AM

On the basis of this data some of our European colleagues are predicting unprecedented levels of 'chemtrail' spraying this spring. Any comment footsoldier?

The fact of the matter is that promoters of the "chemtrail" hoax, including 'footsoldier', who asissted in writing the hoax document 'Chemtrails over America", which purports to have been written by individuals asocciated and trained by the CIA and NSA, have never documented even one case of "chemtrails".
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa

While they claim to have evidence of "spraying" of barium titanate, aluminum, and polymer fibers, they presented no such evidence, and in the ensuing years have refused to provide any.

It seems clear that if a coverup exists, those claiming to hold evidence should be held accountable, yet Wayne Hall does not join in the call for it from these people.

It can therefore be concluded that both Wayne Hall and 'footsoldier', along with those others who wrote the document are indeed covering up one of several possibilities:
-they were duped, in which case they need to identify the perpetrator
-they hold evidence, and for reasons unstated, withold it
-they are all engaged in a deliberate and continuing misinformation campaign

halva

03-11-2005, 05:45 AM

The fact of the matter is that promoters of the "chemtrail" hoax, including 'footsoldier', who asissted in writing the hoax document 'Chemtrails over America", which purports to have been written by individuals asocciated and trained by the CIA and NSA, have never documented even one case of "chemtrails".
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa

While they claim to have evidence of "spraying" of barium titanate, aluminum, and polymer fibers, they presented no such evidence, and in the ensuing years have refused to provide any.

It seems clear that if a coverup exists, those claiming to hold evidence should be held accountable, yet Wayne Hall does not join in the call for it from these people.

It can therefore be concluded that both Wayne Hall and 'footsoldier', along with those others who wrote the document are indeed covering up one of several possibilities:
-they were duped, in which case they need to identify the perpetrator
-they hold evidence, and for reasons unstated, withold it
-they are all engaged in a deliberate and continuing misinformation campaign

Remember our colleague Mr. Raynolds' repeated assertions that if evidence existed such geoengineering programmes were being implemented he would be oppose them because they would violate the Nuremberg Accords and would be illegal.

Consider the leverage he gains from aggressive projection of his two-faced, internally contradictory stance. He can sow anxiety among climate scientists that their compromised position exposes them to dangers, which they must avert through bluffing and evasiveness. He can incite rage among 'chemmies' by allowing them to view the spectacle of the hypocritical scientists, and then tell them that the reason for it is that the chemmies are 'hoaxers'.

It is not necessary to enter into dialogue with such a stance. One simply recognizes it for what it is and implements the logic of war in one's relations with it..

Rather than expending all one's energies looking for 'evidence', there is the alternative solution of coming to an agreement with the scientists that in the interests of anxiety-free debate, anthropogenic climate change debunkers should simply be marginalised, bypassed, excluded from respectable society in the way that racists are nowadays excluded in Europe.

The choice all posters here face is:

a) should one respond to Mr. Raynolds' challenge and confront footsoldier?
or
b) should one, together with halva, try to explore ways of neutralising Raynolds' input here on this thread, as well as off it, judging that as an anthropogenic climate change debunker he has no place in any of our deliberations.

Soon it will be possible to conduct this debate through an autorepetition programme.

Boomer Chick

03-11-2005, 08:06 AM

HALVA!!!!

It looks like you have an Ozone mapping center right there in Greece!!!!

http://lap.physics.auth.gr/ozonemaps/

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki -- Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics!!!!

Why Halva, you could visit, make an appointment with someone and have a great day discussing issues related to Ozone and UV rays! OMG! What an opportunity for you!

http://lap.physics.auth.gr/lap/

The UV-B Network of LAP and its Importance for Global Change: An Introduction

Solar UV radiation and primarily the harmful UV-B spectral region (290-320 nm) is of prime importance due to its biological and photochemical effects in the earth's biosphere-atmosphere system. In a globally changing environment, the thinning of the earth's life protecting ozone shield has as a direct consequence the increase of the solar UV-B flux reaching the ground, which can be particularly damaging in the sunny Mediterranean area. The solar UV-B flux received at ground level is a function of location (latitude, altitude, topography and surface albedo), of season and of the solar zenith angle. Moreover, it depends strongly on the concentration of absorbing or interfering gases (e.g. O3 and SO2), on the meteorological conditions (e.g. cloudiness), and on other scattering processes (e.g. aerosols).

Description of the Network

The monitoring network of LAP, started developing in 1991 and is steadily expanding with the addition of new stations both inside and outside Greece. The primary objective of this network is to establish a reliable and detailed database of UV measurements obtained at different environments, which are supplemented by other ancillary and/or related to UV transfer measurements. It also aims in facilitating basic research on solar UV radiation and its transmittance through the atmosphere, as well as modelling studies of solar UV-B biological dose.

The Network, in its present form, comprises nine peripheral monitoring stations and a core station located at the Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics (LAP), in the University of Thessaloniki. The peripheral stations cover a wide range of atmospheric and exposure conditions, from heavy urban to clear tropospheric environments. At all stations the solar UV biological dose is monitored continuously together with the global solar radiation, at a time resolution of one minute. These presently operating stations of the network are:

· The urban stations in Athens and at Thessaloniki.

· The maritime stations in Kos and Aktion.

· The alpine station (altitude 2.000 meters) in Mountain Vermion.

· The high latitude station in Reykjavik, Iceland (64oN), which also includes spectral UV-B measurements.

· Planned stations are foreseen for Thrace, Halkidiki, Corinthia and Crete

The core station of Thessaloniki comprises two UV spectrophotometers (one single and one double monochromator) operating continuously and monitoring with a 0.5 nm spectral resolution the whole UV solar spectrum. A variety of ancillary measurements are performed in this core station including measurements of global total, UV-A and UV-B radiation, direct and diffuse biological dose, atmospheric turbidity, UV-B surface albedo and meteorological observations. In addition a program for monitoring the O3 and SO2 total columns is in operation since 1982 and recently it is supplemented by measurements of the ozone vertical distribution (ozone soundings). Various tropospheric gases are monitored by using both conventional ground based analyzers and Differential Optical Absorption Systems (D.O.A.S.) and finally, a LIDAR system for measuring vertical profiles of tropospheric aerosols is under development.

All measurements of the Network are gathered in the core station, where firm quality control assures their reliability. Most of the peripheral stations are connected via modems to the core station, to facilitate frequent control of their operation and data transmission. A system for the absolute calibration and standardization of all the solar radiation instruments of the network, which is established in the core stations, ensures also the precise calibration and regular maintenance of the whole Network.

The UV Network of LAP is part of the GAW international network of WMO. The database of LAP is expected to provide accurate input for better and more sophisticated modelling studies in collaborative research programs with interested scientists in Europe and elsewhere.

***

Halva -- Let us know all about your trip! And take some pics while you're at it !

FS, you really outdid yourself on that last posting! Raynolds was looking for UV ray information and you hit the nail right on the head!

Reynolds, CAN all the chemtrail hoaxing crap, would ya? It's old and tiring! If you had spent more time on researching UV instead of worrying about chemtrail hoaxing, you might have learned something!

Halva, you have the opportunity to be a first hand reporter for not only this tiny board, but for your local organizations as well and even your local paper. You could take a tour, talk with a an atmospheric physicist and interview him, write up a report on it all and have a real connection to what's going on. I find contemplating about this... very exciting... and if you tell me you already know everyone there and have visited and it's "old hat" to you --- I would be shocked and disappointed given your level of obvious ignorance on the subject of UV and various other kinds of atmospheric physics. Take this ball and run with it ....... as the locals here would say! Call them and tell them you are an environmentalist and a reporter for a local paper, and you want to do a public relations piece for them and interview a physicist with a little tour. They'll welcome you with open arms! Don't mention the word "chemtrails" --- ask about cirrus clouds and various particulates and manmade greenhouse gases -- don't turn them off, OK? It's not wise. You'll get your answers and more if you talk the scientific talk.... OK? Word to the wise!

What say you?

BC :D

Boomer Chick

03-11-2005, 08:19 AM

Boomer Chick

03-11-2005, 08:37 AM

This story entered on 25th Feb, 2005 08:40:50 AM PST

A 350-year history of carbonyl sulfide (COS) has been derived from measurements of gases trapped in ice cores and consolidated snow collected at sites in Antarctica in a collaborative effort by scientists from NOAA/CMDL and the University of California at Irvine. The gas samples recovered in the melted ice and snow samples were analyzed with gas chromatographs at labs in Boulder and Irvine. The resulting history of atmospheric COS concentrations dates from 1650 to the present and provides a new, consistent picture of long-term atmospheric changes for COS in the Southern Hemisphere.

The COS concentration data suggest that atmospheric mixing ratios of COS increased substantially during the industrial revolution, but have decreased by about 10% in recent years as global industrial emissions of sulfur have declined. Sulfur in COS accounts for a substantial fraction of sulfur acid aerosols in the stratosphere, also known as the Junge layer. This aerosol layer plays an important role in the radiative balance of the atmosphere because it interacts directly with solar radiation and provides surfaces for the heterogeneous chemical destruction of stratospheric ozone.

Given that a tight relationship exists between the atmospheric history of COS and global industrial sulfur emissions, the NOAA data suggests that anthropogenic activities may have caused long-term changes in background sulfuric acid aerosol in the stratosphere. Before 1850, when industrial sulfur emissions became significant, intriguing variations in atmospheric COS may suggest changes in the balance of non-anthropogenic sources and sinks. This is of particular interest because the [b]largest known sink of COS is uptake by vegetation during photosynthesis.

A graph of COS concentrations since 1650 is available at the address below.

More information: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hotitems/cos.html
Contact information
Name: Steve Montzka
Tel: (303) 497-6657
Stephen.A.Montzka@noaa.gov

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hotitems/storyDetail_org.php?sid=2730
***

It seems COS (carbonyl sulfide) may be more important overall than CO2. ?

Boomer Chick

03-11-2005, 08:48 AM

This story entered on 18th Nov, 2004 09:40:50 AM PST

The CMDL Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species (HATS) group have been monitoring the global concentrations and growth rates of CFC-11 (CCl3F), CFC-113 (CCl2FCClF2), CFC-12, CH3CCl3, carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) since 1987. Trace gases (in concentrations as low a few parts per trillion) containing chlorine, bromine, and iodine are involved in the destruction of the Earth's ozone layer, and some have high global warming potentials. Now, the concentrations of these and additional trace gases from Niwot Ridge, Colorado; Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; American Samoa; and South Pole, Antarctica may be viewed online at http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/insitu/cats/cats_conc.html.

The HATS group has been monitoring CFC's during their global increase, and more recently their decline, in response to countries adhering to the Montreal Protocol, the international treaty that set in motion reductions in the production of halocarbon gases that are damaging the stratospheric ozone layer. As the most reactive ozone depleting gases are declining in the atmosphere, CFC replacement compounds such as HCFC-22 (CHClF2) and HCFC-142b (CH3CClF2) are increasing as are sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and halon-1211. The concentration of these gases may also be viewed online.

More information: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/insitu/cats/cats_conc.html
Contact information
Name: Geoff Dutton
Tel: (303) 497-6086
Geoff.Dutton@noaa.gov

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hotitems/storyDetail_org.php?sid=2559

jayreynolds

03-11-2005, 11:17 AM

HALVA!!!!

It looks like you have an Ozone mapping center right there in Greece!!!!

http://lap.physics.auth.gr/ozonemaps/
BC :D
Been there, done that.
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92312&postcount=2475

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92625&postcount=2480

jayreynolds

03-11-2005, 11:34 AM

OK, everyone, I need some feedback on what I see in our skies this morning.

First of all, we went to bed last night with absolutely clear skies, stars twinkling and all. Then I arise around 7:30 and look out and up, and I see trails upon trails of contrails from east to west all lined up neatly from north of our home to the south over the whole town of Colorado Springs. What kind of air traffic could that have been during the night? I'm talking trails very neatly parallel which have now turned into a blanket of thin cirrus clouds totally greying the sky. The point is, if it had accumulated during a day of normal air traffic, I could understand it. And considering that yesterday, all day, the skies were perfectly blue with a clear night before and a few smaller cumulous type clouds traveling here and there --- HOW could so many planes have flown in the nightime hours? It makes no sense and I want an explanation. Our air traffic in the night is quite mimimal here -- the AM hours. What? Do I have to stay up all night and monitor the skies, now?

Please give me some feedback, please?

BC :confused:
Delayed Christmas traffic?

To quote 'footsoldier'- "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH".
I've already told you how to identify the planes you see flying over your area.
http://www.avweb.com/fe/index.html
Don't come whining around because you weren't interested.

Seriously, plenty of flights leave the West Coast quite early in the AM.

But maybe the 'sprayplanes' were just showing off over the US Air Force Academy!
Probably every damn one of those cadets and staff officers have been sworn to secrecy.

Seriously again, go to this site and click on the left side link to see a snapshot of current US 'heavy' traffic.
http://www.flightexplorer.com/

Boomer Chick

03-11-2005, 06:45 PM

Been there, done that.
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92312&postcount=2475

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92625&postcount=2480

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

GEEZE!!! I had no idea!

Thanks for the heads up! It looks as though I expressed it in a more tactful way, to say the least! Considering the egos of men, perhaps my way will work?

Who knows? BTW, I like this new Science News format! Were those recent ozone links enough information for you to gleen the ozone situation regarding world wide levels over time? I thought the "hole" was an indication that the ozone layers were becoming depleted? Did the ozone hole always exist?

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

03-11-2005, 07:05 PM

Delayed Christmas traffic?

To quote 'footsoldier'- "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH".
I've already told you how to identify the planes you see flying over your area.
http://www.avweb.com/fe/index.html
Don't come whining around because you weren't interested.

Seriously, plenty of flights leave the West Coast quite early in the AM.

But maybe the 'sprayplanes' were just showing off over the US Air Force Academy!
Probably every damn one of those cadets and staff officers have been sworn to secrecy.

Seriously again, go to this site and click on the left side link to see a snapshot of current US 'heavy' traffic.
http://www.flightexplorer.com/

:D Well, I went there and the program needs to be downloaded or something. I'll check it out later. Considering we're surrounded by several military bases, two Air Force bases and Ft. Carson Army base, the program you suggest probably wouldn't have that military flight data on it, would it? But it would be informational to check out the passenger flights anyway, yes.
Hey, I was just asking anyone what they think. Considering air traffic flows regularly regardless of the day of the week, why would one day show no contrails at all and the next a layering of such? It doesn't make sense to me. Humidity? Perhaps I'll call our local TV meteorologist next time and see what he says. It doesn't happen that often here, so that's why I posted about it.

Thanks for the feedback.

BC ;)

halva

03-11-2005, 09:53 PM

jayreynolds

03-12-2005, 03:48 PM

:Who knows? BTW, I like this new Science News format! Were those recent ozone links enough information for you to gleen the ozone situation regarding world wide levels over time?
BC ;)

No, you remarked about UV levels increasing. I said that historical UV measurements don't exist..

jayreynolds

03-12-2005, 03:56 PM

As I explained to Raynolds in the postings following those of his own which he has now reposted, my strategy involves making it possible for climate scientists to 'come to us'. It does not involve chasing around the countryside, notebook and'/or microphone in hand, visiting them on their territory, where they are subject to all the constraints that we have now discovered are operating on them.
I hope Wayne isn't holding his breath waiting on all those scientists to come-a-running.....................

Of course, that excludes fanatical frauds who run behind anyone who will listen.
Looks like nobody's listening.......................................
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8179

foot_soldier

03-12-2005, 04:57 PM

Boomer Chick wrote:
.....BTW, I like this new Science News format! Were those recent ozone links enough information for you to gleen the ozone situation regarding world wide levels over time?....

Jay Reynolds replies:
..... No, you remarked about UV levels increasing. I said that historical UV measurements don't exist....
UV Radiation Data Archives:

National Weather Service: Climate Prediction Center
UV Index: Annual Time Series
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/uv_index/uv_annual.html

WOUDC: World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre
Data Archives
http://www.woudc.org/data_e.html

These are just two of several UV data archives available to the general public. Half an hour of focused Web search will certainly elicit many more.

halva

03-12-2005, 10:40 PM

Boomer Chick

03-13-2005, 07:25 PM

Halva,

You are aware of a regard for the rules of law and rules in general, are you not? This is a topic forum with rules that flatly state the parameters of social intercourse. The rules were posted, a warning given, and those who broke the rules were deleted. I had a post deleted as did Yaak and Reynolds -- justifiably and quite admirably so. I applaud the mods and might add that Mike has been working hard to control personal slams and flaming in the General Discussions area as well. He just didn't choose our threads to target. IS pushed the envelope and had to take the consequences. Period. He deserved it.

Here's a weather modification program in Greece:

http://www.weathermod.com/projects/hail/greece.php

Did you know such private programs were ongoing?

Check out the various cloud seeding equipment for both air flight dispersal and on ground dispersal:

http://www.weathermod.com/seeding_equipment.php

Company that supplies ice seeding equipment:

http://www.iceflares.com/

Weather Modification Law in the U.S.:

http://www.rbs2.com/weather.htm

Well, this is all I found for now!

BC

halva

03-13-2005, 09:26 PM

Here's a weather modification program in Greece:

http://www.weathermod.com/projects/hail/greece.php

Did you know such private programs were ongoing?

I know that when one talks about aerosol spraying from aircraft in Greece people come out with a lot of red herrings. I haven't heard specific reference to cloud seeding against hail in Macedonia, but very often people mention crop-dusting of olive trees.

halva

03-13-2005, 09:37 PM

Reynolds, CAN all the chemtrail hoaxing crap, would ya? It's old and tiring! If you had spent more time on researching UV instead of worrying about chemtrail hoaxing, you might have learned something!

BC, would you like this appeal to Raynolds to be given teeth?

foot_soldier

03-13-2005, 09:40 PM

Re: Weather Modification Programs, UV and Ozone Issues, etc.

I'm curious, halva - do you ever actually read any of the links being posted here? Or do you simply assume that those who are providing them are just throwing them in here to impress people?

halva

03-14-2005, 12:55 AM

Which link would you like specifically to draw my attention to Footsoldier?

Things are moving so fast in the real world that I don't have time to follow up every link, especially with BC, who posts far more than she can assimilate even herself.

I don't like to see you waxing ironic at the very satisfactory division of labour we have established here. But I also don't want to make excuses for missing something important if that's what I have done.

It would seem that a relevant part of the weather modification legislation would be:

"liability for inadvertent weather modification, such as:
release of heat or smoke from industrial smokestacks;

injection of water vapor and particulates from jet airplane engines into the dry stratosphere;
release of heat and airborne particulates from cities;
pollution from automobiles;

global warming from release of CO2 by burning wood, coal, oil, or natural gas; or
removal of ozone by release of fluorocarbons into the atmosphere."

The point being that this type of weather-modification is not covered by the relevant legislation.

The following is also possibly significant:

The drastic decrease in the U.S. Government's financial support for scientific research in atmospheric electricity caused me to change fields in 1982 from basic scientific research to practical engineering research on protection of electronic equipment from transient overvoltages, such as caused by lightning. When financial support for research in all of my areas of science and engineering was annihilated in 1990, I began to change careers to law. I am currently an attorney in Massachusetts.

Boomer Chick

03-14-2005, 09:35 AM

I hope Wayne isn't holding his breath waiting on all those scientists to come-a-running.....................

Of course, that excludes fanatical frauds who run behind anyone who will listen.
Looks like nobody's listening.......................................
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8179

Agree with your commentary! And what a fanatic and fool -- thanks for the heads up! Swampgas knows me well enough that if IS starts gossiping he'll realize the source and that filters to Mech and the others as well. No one has taken IS seriously on that board anyway. The minute anyone takes a stand on an issue without the ability to remain open to opposing information and all "non-group" information they become stuck in a polarity position. I'm not saying taking a position on an issue is wrong, or joining political parties is wrong, but to stop the flow of credible objective information discredits any intellect and subjugates him/her to narrowmindedness and a form of blindness. Case in point.

FS -- I so appreciate your excellent contributions and commentary here! And about Halva I often wonder the same thing as you. You know, I would imagine that those flares of dry ice the seeding pilots use could produce lingering contrails as well if they have since experimented with pre-spraying before particular air masses move in. It was interesting to read about the ground based seeding apparatus as well and see the photos of the clouds produced from the machine -- rather yellowish black. And who knew that black carbon was also sprayed into the atmosphere in various places to induce hydroscopic rain drop formation?

But the definitive website discovery for me last night, was this:

PLEASE READ !!!!

What do you think about it?

www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997...sld008.htm

Mother site:

www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997...d/abarnes/

Notice the various verifiable experiments, and the projections. Notice also, that they include HAARP under the main subject of weather modification!!!!! Hello? No great deal of information there, but when you connect the dots in their including HAARP at all, you realize something indeed is going on. I do think that electrification of clouds was mentioned as well. What system could possibly electrify clouds? They also mentioned the role of lasers punching holes in clouds, their ability to dry clouds locally, and produce them locally. I find it all quite revealing.

Jay, I posted this over at Mav's, too. Your input would be appreciated as well on either board. The implications of even the scanty notes accompanying that slide show.... make one wonder and definately place weather mod. as a goal of the Army. If I could find an Air Force site like that.... whoa!

BC :shock:

halva

03-14-2005, 10:07 AM

Both of those links are dead BC.

And if Raynolds' contribution consists in persisting in 'hoax' accusations, do you still solicit his input?

Boomer Chick

03-14-2005, 12:20 PM

Boomer Chick

03-14-2005, 12:26 PM

Boomer Chick

03-14-2005, 12:27 PM

Yes they do! Try them now! I don't know what happened, except that mayby copying them from one forum to another corrupted them in some way! Sorry about that!

BC ;)

foot_soldier

03-14-2005, 06:41 PM

March 14, 2005
The peak of Mt Kilimanjaro as it has not been seen for 11,000 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1437549,00.html

Africa's tallest mountain, with its white peak, is one of the most instantly recognisable sights in the world. But as this aerial photograph shows, Kilimanjaro's trademark snowy cap, at 5,895 metres (19, 335.6 ft), is now all but gone - 15 years before scientists predicted it would melt through global warming, writes Paul Brown.

In Swahili Kilima Njaro means shining mountain, but the glaciers and snow cap that kept the summit white, probably for 11,000 years - despite the location, in Tanzania, 200 miles south of the equator - have almost disappeared.

Tomorrow the 34 ministers at the G8 energy and environment summit, meeting in London, will receive a book - published by The Climate Group, and entitled Northsoutheastwest: A 360 View of Climate Change - that includes this picture among others depicting global warming. The book's text describes the devastating speed of climate change documented by 10 of the world's top photographers from Magnum Photos.

***
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
Location: 3.07 S, 37.35 E
Elevation: 19,335.6 ft (5,895m)
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/img_kilimanjaro.html

Boomer Chick

03-14-2005, 06:48 PM

Boomer Chick

03-14-2005, 06:53 PM

It's a fact, the oceans are warming, March 14th, 2005:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Focus/GC14Dh01.html

Now this is science!

foot_soldier

03-14-2005, 07:07 PM

Here are the links again:

http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/sld008.htm

http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/

Hope these work!

I accessed them both just now! Now I will post and see if the links work from this forum!

Thanks!

BC ;)
The links are indeed working now. I've seen this site and will make the same comment I made at the time: It stands to reason that the military (and the US military in particular) would be interested and investing in research that is laying the foundation for development of technology that will support the conduct of warfare from space-based platforms. It's no secret that Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz are actively pushing this trajectory. There are dozens of media articles documenting the progression of this paradigm, the following being one of the most recent:

January 10, 2005
Israeli Official Urges Space-Based Weapons
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=587184&C=mideast

Israel’s top lawmaker for defense and security affairs has called for the development and deployment of space-based weapons as part of an integrated sea, air and space force designed to deliver decisive victory in future full-fledged conventional wars.

In a rare public discussion on Israel’s military use of space, Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israel’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, said the nation must compensate for its lack of strategic depth on land by expanding use of sea- and space-based attacks.

Specifically, Steinitz urged defense and industry officials to consider future developments of anti-satellite missiles, satellite-attacking lasers and ship-based missiles “that can strike the skies.”

“In Israel, our strategic Achilles’ heel is our miniscule geographical size,” Steinitz told a Dec. 22 symposium sponsored by the Israeli Space Society and the Fisher Institute for Strategic Air and Space Studies. “This lack of ground territory — and our obligation to defend the homeland from attack — drives the need to develop a strategic envelope of air, sea and space forces not only for defense, but for attack.”

In his lecture, “Space and Israel’s National Security,” Steinitz outlined four worldwide trends in the militarization of space:

-- Use of satellites for intelligence and communications.

-- Satellite-guided weaponry.

-- Anti-satellite and satellite defense systems.

-- Space-to-ground means of attack.

“We can draw many lessons from the evolution of air warfare,” Steinitz said in an interview. “Just as the airplane evolved from an intelligence gathering platform to a self-protected precision attack system, so should the satellite — in the years ahead — be maximized for all kinds of missions.”

Citing proposed space-based weaponry programs in the United States and elsewhere, Steinitz said Israel must not ignore trends and technologies that can extend the battlefield beyond the atmosphere.

Tal Inbar, vice president of the Israeli Space Society and research fellow at Israel’s Fisher Institute of Strategic Air and Space Studies, said, “This is the first time an Israeli official publicly talked about the need for Israel to develop its own space warfare capabilities such as ASAT [anti-satellite], radiation weapons and so on.”..... (continued)

To conclude my comment, if the working goal is to perfect the conduct of warfare from platforms in the near-earth space environment, it stands to reason that those in pursuit of this goal are going to be conducting a great deal of research into what conditions either enhance or obstruct the technology. I could say a lot more but I think you get the picture.

This all makes me sick, needless to say.

foot_soldier

03-14-2005, 07:48 PM

I found this quite interesting yet confusing. Is Focus on the Family against the research involved in global warming, or are they for it??? It just seems quite strange to me. How do you read it? What is stifled and who is stifling it? It seems these people are against environmentalists in general... that's about all I can gain from this statement. And yet they claim to be Christians to whom Biblical principle urges humanity to take care of the planet we received from God as a gift. I don't get it !

Colorado Springs, Colo. — Focus on the Family Vice President of Government and Public Policy Tom Minnery issued the following statement today in response to a report that the National Association of Evangelicals actively supports efforts to curb global warming, an environmental theory yet to be adequately substantiated:
http://i-newswire.com/pr10134.html
The above-linked "statement" from "Focus on the Family" is in response to the following announcement which was picked up last week by several news outlets in addition to the New York Times:

March 10, 2005
Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/national/10evangelical.html

A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.

These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and a significant voice in the debate, said, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created."

The association has scheduled two meetings on Capitol Hill and in the Washington suburbs on Thursday and Friday, where more than 100 leaders will discuss issuing a statement on global warming. The meetings are considered so pivotal that Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and officials of the Bush administration, who are on opposite sides on how to address global warming, will speak.

People on all sides of the debate say that if evangelical leaders take a stand, they could change the political dynamics on global warming.

The administration has refused to join the international Kyoto treaty and opposes mandatory emission controls.

The issue has failed to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. An overwhelming majority of evangelicals are Republicans, and about four out of five evangelicals voted for President Bush last year, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of 51 church denominations, said he had become passionate about global warming because of his experience scuba diving and observing the effects of rising ocean temperatures and pollution on coral reefs.

"The question is, will evangelicals make a difference?" Mr. Haggard said. "And the answer is, the Senate thinks so. We do represent 30 million people, and we can mobilize them if we have to."

In October the association paved the way for broad-based advocacy on the environment when it adopted "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," a platform that included a plank on "creation care" that many evangelical leaders say was unprecedented.

"Because clean air, pure water and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order," the statement said, "government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

Nearly 100 evangelical leaders have signed the statement..... (continued)

I am not personally confused by the "Focus on the Family" statement. The following paragraph excerpted from same seems to be a pretty clear summation of this group's position in regard to global warming issues:

.....“Our concern with global warming’s more radical proponents is the way in which they have attempted to manipulate this issue to stifle advances in numerous fields – advances that would benefit the lives of people the world over, including many of its poorest citizens. Any issue that seems to put plants and animals above humans is one that we cannot support.”..... END excerpt.

I will say this much: In this particular case, and in my opinion, the characterization implied in the final sentence is a perversion of "the issue" and a spurious (and by now all-too-familiar) distortion of the in fact quite level-headed positions of most of the people who are concerned about this issue. I am putting that kindly.

Sorry I'm not being more articulate here. After 5+ years of closely following this situation on many levels I'm just sick unto death of all the bullsh*t. The mainstream media are not exactly enhancing public understanding of what are basically a few core issues about which we could in fact DO something if properly informed.

halva

03-14-2005, 08:52 PM

The links are not dead! I just accessed them this morning.

Do you want me to copy and paste on them, then?

My relationship with Jay is none of your business! I am a free agent! How many times do I have to express this to you?

BC :mad:

It's OK BC. From the second posting they work. Thank you.

What Raynolds posts at this site is not just a question of 'your relationship' with him. He has been in the habit of calling us hoaxers, with great persistence, in big red letters.

You played a role in getting Insurrectionchemistry kicked off this forum, whether temporarily or permanently we shall see. You have also asked Raynolds to lay off with the hoax allegations. What I was asking you is if you want this request to be given teeth, i.e. made a subject for examination by moderators, if he does not comply. Asking him to lay off the hoax accusations was not something that pertained only to your personal relationship with him. You were doing it on all our behalf.

jayreynolds

03-15-2005, 03:41 AM

And who knew that black carbon was also sprayed into the atmosphere in various places to induce hydroscopic rain drop formation? :

Well, you should have ben around six years ago:
"Weather Control Experiments

It is known that the military is interested in weather modification for defensive and offensive purposes. A program to seed clouds with carbon black(soot) in order to increase cirrus and dissipate fog is scheduled for completion by 2004, $2.5 million is budgeted for this in 1999.(10)"

10. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM) Directorate for
Technical Mission, Test Technology Symposium '97, March 1820,
1997, Weather Modification, Dr. Arnold Barnes, Phillips
Lab/GPO
http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html

halva

03-15-2005, 04:22 AM

The new version of Carnicom's 'Chemtrails' DVD showed up today. I see that the number of changes from the original are not very significant: just a couple of the least relevant interviews removed and replaced with some marginally better material.

Carnicom may have to learn to be a European if he wants anybody official to listen to him.

Boomer Chick

03-15-2005, 10:27 AM

Well, you should have ben around six years ago:
"Weather Control Experiments

It is known that the military is interested in weather modification for defensive and offensive purposes. A program to seed clouds with carbon black(soot) in order to increase cirrus and dissipate fog is scheduled for completion by 2004, $2.5 million is budgeted for this in 1999.(10)"

10. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM) Directorate for
Technical Mission, Test Technology Symposium '97, March 1820,
1997, Weather Modification, Dr. Arnold Barnes, Phillips
Lab/GPO
http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html

That Barnes fellow was the person in charge at the Army links I offered. I noticed, however, that so far at Mav's and here, you have not commented on the various abilities of military efforts at cloud formation, cloud dispersal, fog dispersal, hole punching with lasers, and HAARP included in the Army document regarding weather modification.

Do you have an udated weather mod link for the military? Can you find one with your wonderful search engines? If you can't, what implications might that have?

Besides carbon soot dispersal, the other methods in use and described on that link were numerous and HAARP was obviously involved in some of them, but the particulars were not divulged. Wouldn't one who cares about the truth want to know exactly WHAT HAARP's role is in WEATHER MODIFICATION?

Your page was informative, Jay, but regarding HAARP it was out of date and you could have used more links to support your debunking of various theories. You need scientific backing, scientific links, and military links!

It was a great effort, though!

I will have to present one aspect of the weather modification Army link at a time to ask you to comment upon and give explanations for, since you are such an expert in the area of Weather Modification. OK?

Later...

Boomer Chick

03-15-2005, 10:32 AM

It's OK BC. From the second posting they work. Thank you.

What Raynolds posts at this site is not just a question of 'your relationship' with him. He has been in the habit of calling us hoaxers, with great persistence, in big red letters.

You played a role in getting Insurrectionchemistry kicked off this forum, whether temporarily or permanently we shall see. You have also asked Raynolds to lay off with the hoax allegations. What I was asking you is if you want this request to be given teeth, i.e. made a subject for examination by moderators, if he does not comply. Asking him to lay off the hoax accusations was not something that pertained only to your personal relationship with him. You were doing it on all our behalf.

Halva, when I give you meaty and information-laden links, I expect you to comment upon the links themselves. You want to talk about Reynolds all the time. I don't. I see the importance of discussing weather manipulation issues and you see the importance of Reynolds manipulation issues. When will this stop, Halva? He's not central to anything regarding our obtaining knowledge. He's just another human being. This is just a tiny little board.

:rolleyes:

Boomer Chick

03-15-2005, 10:35 AM

Boomer Chick

03-15-2005, 11:23 AM

The above-linked "statement" from "Focus on the Family" is in response to the following announcement which was picked up last week by several news outlets in addition to the New York Times:

March 10, 2005
Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/national/10evangelical.html

A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.

These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and a significant voice in the debate, said, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created."

The association has scheduled two meetings on Capitol Hill and in the Washington suburbs on Thursday and Friday, where more than 100 leaders will discuss issuing a statement on global warming. The meetings are considered so pivotal that Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and officials of the Bush administration, who are on opposite sides on how to address global warming, will speak.

People on all sides of the debate say that if evangelical leaders take a stand, they could change the political dynamics on global warming.

The administration has refused to join the international Kyoto treaty and opposes mandatory emission controls.

The issue has failed to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. An overwhelming majority of evangelicals are Republicans, and about four out of five evangelicals voted for President Bush last year, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of 51 church denominations, said he had become passionate about global warming because of his experience scuba diving and observing the effects of rising ocean temperatures and pollution on coral reefs.

"The question is, will evangelicals make a difference?" Mr. Haggard said. "And the answer is, the Senate thinks so. We do represent 30 million people, and we can mobilize them if we have to."

In October the association paved the way for broad-based advocacy on the environment when it adopted "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," a platform that included a plank on "creation care" that many evangelical leaders say was unprecedented.

"Because clean air, pure water and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order," the statement said, "government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

Nearly 100 evangelical leaders have signed the statement..... (continued)

I am not personally confused by the "Focus on the Family" statement. The following paragraph excerpted from same seems to be a pretty clear summation of this group's position in regard to global warming issues:

.....“Our concern with global warming’s more radical proponents is the way in which they have attempted to manipulate this issue to stifle advances in numerous fields – advances that would benefit the lives of people the world over, including many of its poorest citizens. Any issue that seems to put plants and animals above humans is one that we cannot support.”..... END excerpt.

I will say this much: In this particular case, and in my opinion, the characterization implied in the final sentence is a perversion of "the issue" and a spurious (and by now all-too-familiar) distortion of the in fact quite level-headed positions of most of the people who are concerned about this issue. I am putting that kindly.

Sorry I'm not being more articulate here. After 5+ years of closely following this situation on many levels I'm just sick unto death of all the bullsh*t. The mainstream media are not exactly enhancing public understanding of what are basically a few core issues about which we could in fact DO something if properly informed.

FS, you are incredibly articulate! Your views and expressions reveal quite a bit of knowledge and resonate with mine as well. Your experience and study reflects brightly in all you post! Keep up the good work! Appreciate it!

I'm sick about the division that Bush has created in our country, even regarding the most simple aspects of caring for our environment. Imagine having to live in the same town as Focus on the Family? I'm ready to call some of their PR people on the phone! "What is your problem?" I would ask. "Is it too hard to imagine or read the scientific information regarding our influencing our planet through our pollutants and waste products? Please! " I wonder what the dolt on the other end of the line would reply to that? LOL!

At least some states, cities, and private organizations, as well as some cooperative energy companies are mitigating their contributions to the air, land, and water. It took citizen activism, litigation, and much suffering to get where we are today. But it seems as though the activism has paid off to a degree. Getting the general public educated when politicans kiss the asses of the big money corporations is hard enough, but I know for sure, that the public schools are educating the children about caring for the environment. So that's a positive. The churches might be ruining this for some of the young, but overall, the trends seem hopeful. Now that the gov. funded science is aimed toward studying the atmosphere and other systems, perhaps it will pay off. At least the Montreal Protocol has alleviated the CFC's and that's a start at repairing the Ozone hole and depleted ozone situation, but we won't see that for awhile as we'll be reaping the past CFC damage now. I would imagine that over the years, the plankton will come back and in the meantime we can mitigate as best we can. Who cares what a bunch of closed-minded Evangelicals think? They're not getting into power positions anyway.... because scandal is rearing its righteous head and we'll see some profound changes. Keep the faith.... it will happen.

Thanks!

halva

03-15-2005, 12:43 PM

I have the original version. Not enough credible scientific information as far as I'm concerned.

I guess we agree on this?

BC, this, for me, is what my failing to follow up all the links you post is for you.

Why do you guess such a thing?

The criticism I have of Carnicom is not that what he says is not credible.

Still, I am glad you and I have this arguing arrangement here. It is as useful for citizens' democracy to have you and me arguing with each other all the time as it is useful for U.S. global domination to have American Democrats and Republicans arguing with each other all the time.

Boomer Chick

03-15-2005, 01:19 PM

BC, this, for me, is what my failing to follow up all the links you post is for you.

Why do you guess such a thing?

The criticism I have of Carnicom is not that what he says is not credible.

Still, I am glad you and I have this arguing arrangement here. It is as useful for citizens' democracy to have you and me arguing with each other all the time as it is useful for U.S. global domination to have American Democrats and Republicans arguing with each other all the time.

You are so thoroughly cryptic and non-communicative today, Halva. Exactly how do you view the Carnicom DVD?

And as far as argumentation, your simile has not escaped my notice. Apparently you mean our arguing is useless?

I need your clear and concise communication here, you didn't state your opinion which is why I questioned it.

Do you agree with everything Carnicom says on the DVD? Do you read any of the links I post? Did you notice on the Army link that weather modification in various forms has gone on for decades and includes HAARP? It included laser hole punching in clouds, cloud dispersion, and cloud formation? Did you already know all of this?

halva

03-15-2005, 02:16 PM

You are so thoroughly cryptic and non-communicative today, Halva. Exactly how do you view the Carnicom DVD?

It is a good attempt to document what it seems is actually happening. The problem is: who is it to be submitted to? All along I have argued that what we have to create is the institutions that will receive the evidence; not so much the institutions that will provide the evidence.

And as far as argumentation, your simile has not escaped my notice. Apparently you mean our arguing is useless?

No. I mean exactly the opposite. It is very useful for US global domination to have Republicans and Democrats arguing with each other all the time.

I need your clear and concise communication here, you didn't state your opinion which is why I questioned it.

Do you agree with everything Carnicom says on the DVD?

There are only a handful of formulations that I don't like. He refers to 'normal contrails'. He says: "We will probably never know etc. etc........" I don't ever like saying that we will never know something which just happens to be secret at the moment.

Do you read any of the links I post?

I read as many as I can, starting with those that are closest to my interests.

Did you notice on the Army link that weather modification in various forms has gone on for decades and includes HAARP? It included laser hole punching in clouds, cloud dispersion, and cloud formation?

Yes.

Did you already know all of this?

I knew that such things have been going on for a fairly long time.

Boomer Chick

03-15-2005, 03:24 PM

Thank you, Halva. That was very clear. To some, who think the Republicans and Democrats are all the same and generally ALL work for the corporations, they feel that the arguing is only surface and means nothing. I didn't know if you held those views or not. I happen to agree with you on that, but to many, they may call me naive for believing that two parties are actually in opposition.

I hear you on being able to disclose and uncover what may be secret now. It's a fairly closed system though, as you know. Just consider the Black Ops programs.

Anyway, this new Pew report might enlighten us to what's happening in :

THE EUROPEAN UNION EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME (EU-ETS)
INSIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/EU%2DETS%20White%20Paper%2Epdf

I may have to ask FS to read it and explain it to me! I find the whole concept of emissions trading confusing. I haven't completed reading it all, yet.

halva

03-15-2005, 11:21 PM

Future Action on Climate Change
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/action_climat/library?1=/geoengineering_optionspd/_EN_1.0_&a=d

jayreynolds

03-16-2005, 04:24 AM

Future Action on Climate Change
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/action_climat/library?1=/geoengineering_optionspd/_EN_1.0_&a=d

Interesting linkage, Wayne, especially this one:
http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/DownLoad/kVesASJAmiGUd4KIR6TNHWBj2qNUmEw7wqKAc9p6hEpjGraG-j6ckCdDcCq/stakeholder%20consultation%20oct%202004.pdf

jayreynolds

03-16-2005, 04:48 AM

http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessage?topic ID=3148.topic

halva

03-16-2005, 06:52 AM

Boomer Chick

03-16-2005, 07:58 AM

Future Action on Climate Change
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/action_climat/library?1=/geoengineering_optionspd/_EN_1.0_&a=d

Excellent link, thanks! The various documents and EU information on Climate Change strategies offers a wealth of information and with it, a hope for all humanity! THANKS!

Boomer Chick

03-16-2005, 08:00 AM

Interesting linkage, Wayne, especially this one:
http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/DownLoad/kVesASJAmiGUd4KIR6TNHWBj2qNUmEw7wqKAc9p6hEpjGraG-j6ckCdDcCq/stakeholder%20consultation%20oct%202004.pdf

The link wouldn't work for me, Jay. To which one on the list were you referring?

halva

03-16-2005, 09:50 AM

Complete and finale Solution for the Global Warming

The idea is very simple and very easy to implement and very low cost, in away it's entire cost for years will be less than the cost of reconstructing the damaged buildings in the historic city of Venice.

Brief description of the idea

We use the passenger flights between the cities so each airplane when it reaches the highest point in the sky lets say 10,000 meters it starts to sprinkle white dust in the sky, 100Kg each airplane so the upper atmosphere wind takes this sun light reflector dust with it and it keeps circulating the earth for years.

Since we will not send the airplanes solely for this purpose, it will cost us very small amount and may be each airline will do it for free to save our planet.

The total sun light reflector surface aria will add up in a short time may be in one year to nine million Km2 so this aria will reflect 80% of the light and heat out of the earth and if we use KCO3 which reflects 98% of the light we will have a total sun light reflection of the earth of an aria mentioned above so by controlling this surface aria we can control from now on the sea level best to human benefit and Venice will be as beautiful as in the old times.

Calculations

1- The molecular weight of CaCO3 is 100 so each 100 grams of CaCO3 has Avogadro's number of molecules which is 6.23 * 1023 , I will assume this number from now on as 1*1024 to ease the calculations and to make the presentation simple to every body.

2- The density of the chalk is around 4.6g/ , so 100g will take the volume a cub it's side has a length of 5cm.

3- from the assumed Avogadro's number 1* 104we will see that each side length is 108 molecules.

4- I will assume that each dust particle will consists from one thousand million atoms so each particle has a side of 1000 molecules. So by dividing 108 (mentioned in step 3) by 1000 we will know how many layers the cub will has which will be 105 layers.

5- Since the cub has six square sides each has surface aria of
5*5=25 cm2 so by multiplying 25cm2 by 105 layers = 25 *105 cm2

6- since m2 = 104 cm2 by dividing 25 *105 cm2 by 104 cm2 =250m2 that is the surface aria of one mule of dust in the sky.

7- Since each airplane will sprinkle 100Kg of CaCO3 at each flight that means 1000 mule so the surface aria of 100Kg is

1000 * 250m2 = 250,000 m2

8- since there is more than 10,000 flight every day all over the world so the total surface aria sprinkled every day will be

250,000 m2 * 10,000 flight = 2500,000,000 m2

9- since Km2 = 1000,000 m2 so by dividing
2500,000,000 m2 by 1000,000 m2 = 2500 Km2 this aria will be added every day

10- so in one year that will add up to 2500 Km* 365 = 912500 Km2 that is approximately one million Km2 so in ten years we will have reflecting surface as big as USA or if the CaCO3 particles consists from 108 molecules we will have this surface aria in one year only.

I think we should use this idea very carefully and not over do it because we might go into a small ice age and all the dinosaurs will die if we had any.

The equipment needed

We design a container like the fire extinguisher which contain CCl4 and it pushes the powder of CCl4 by the force of compressed gas so each container contains CaCO3 powder and compressed gas so when the pilot triggers it , it will go to the upper atmosphere through a very small hole in the luggage aria of the airplane.

After each flight the luggage workers replace the empty container by a full one.

I hope this idea will be useful to you and will solve the problem of the global warming.

Email : brysam2@yahoo.co.uk
Mobile : 00971 50 8668762

Yours truly,

K. S. Brisam

jayreynolds

03-16-2005, 10:37 AM

Raynolds I would gladly exchange roles and become defender of the status quo leaving you and your debunker buddies to be the flaming radicals and attack the ridiculous geoengineering schemes these eggheads are pushing.
But to really oppose something you must first acknowledge that it is happening.
What use is it to say that you would oppose it if it were a reality, but it isn't??
You will go back now to saying that I can't prove it is a reality, I suppose.
Your playing to the aisles at Mav's or wherever is no different from Jim Phelps playing to the (empty) aisles at CTC as far as I can see.

Wayne, if these "idea men" don't continue to come up with new ideas, they can't justify their paychecks. Since they are all "pie-in-the-sky" ideas, with plenty of feasibility problems(ever try to roll out an acre of plastic and expect it to stay 'put'?), I really see no purpose in "opposing" them, other than the apparent waste of money funding them.

BTW, at what 'environmental' cost did the yerpeen guy fly over to the US to discuss this crap?
What a waste of good kerosene!

jayreynolds

03-16-2005, 10:44 AM

Brief description of the idea

We use the passenger flights between the cities so each airplane when it reaches the highest point in the sky lets say 10,000 meters it starts to sprinkle white dust in the sky, 100Kg each airplane so the upper atmosphere wind takes this sun light reflector dust with it and it keeps circulating the earth for years.

Hold it, right there, Hoss.
What is the residence time of particulate at 10,000 meters.
Either the bloke doesn't know Christmas from Bourke Street, or he's handing you a brown eyed mullet, Wayne.

halva

03-16-2005, 01:49 PM

Yer knocking on the wrong door, boss. I'm not a climate scientist; I'm a 'chemmie'.

Boomer Chick

03-16-2005, 04:11 PM

Stark realities pointing to Global Warming..... not too much new!

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i12/8312globalwarming.html

Boomer Chick

03-16-2005, 04:18 PM

UK... Battle Against Global Warming

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED16%20Mar%202005%2010%3A29%3A15%3A457

Excerpt:

......Mr Brown also announced that the Treasury will explore over the next year how Government and business can remove barriers to the development of the energy services market in the UK.

He said that by making climate change a key priority of the UK's Presidency of the EU in the second half of this year, "I want that energy efficiency and productivity of the European economy to also be a principal focus".

It seems that this country is not only talking about it but taking action and, while there will always be people who doubt global warming is a massive problem, are we really willing to chance it?

***

Cheerio and hip hip !!!

Boomer Chick

03-17-2005, 08:33 PM

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17167396.htm

No stopping global warming, studies predict
17 Mar 2005 20:49:04 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - Even if people stopped pumping out carbon dioxide and other pollutants tomorrow, global warming would still get worse, two teams of researchers reported on Thursday.

Sea levels will rise more than they have already risen, worsening the damage caused by extreme high tides and storm surges, and droughts, heat waves and storms will become more severe, the climate experts predicted.

That makes immediate action to slow global warming even more vital, the teams at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado report in the journal Science.

"Even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the climate will continue to warm, and there will be proportionately even more sea level rise," said the NCAR's Gerald Meehl, who led one of the two studies.

"The longer we wait, the more climate change we are committed to in the future."

Virtually no one disagrees human activity is fueling global warming, and a global treaty signed in Kyoto, Japan, aims to reduce polluting emissions. But the world's biggest polluter, the United States, has withdrawn from the 1997 treaty, saying its provisions would hurt the U.S. economy.

Meehl's team ran two computer simulations of climate change -- complex programs, he said, that took months to run on supercomputers.

Those models included as many variables as the researchers could think of, such as human carbon emissions, other pollution, current temperatures and their rate of change, emissions from volcanoes, changes in solar radiation and shifts in the ozone layer.

"Then we ran for the 21st century three different scenarios," Meehl said in a telephone interview.

One scenario assumed human production of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases stabilized in 2000 and ran the model to the year 2100.

"We found that just based on the ingredients that have already been put into the atmosphere in the 20th century, we already are committed to another half a degree (0.5 degree C or 0.9 degree F) of global warming," Meehl said.

"That's about what we saw in the 20th century. We are already committed to as much climate change in the 21st century as we saw in the 20th century."

That would mean more extreme weather and a rise in sea levels, not even accounting for melting ice, Meehl said.

Experts say sea levels have risen 4 inches (9 cm) already over the past century and could rise between 4 and 40 inches (9 to 88 cm) more in the next century.

If completely melted, the Greenland ice sheet would add 25 feet (7 metres) to overall sea level and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise it by 16 feet (5 metres) -- enough to swamp most of Florida, Bangladesh and New York City's Manhattan island.

In a second study in Science, the NCAR's Tom Wigley said he used a much simpler climate model to make a similar prediction.

He found it may not be possible to reduce emissions enough to stop the sea from rising. Even if all emissions stopped now, he calculated, changes were under way that would lead to a rise in sea levels of 4 inches (10 cm) per century.

Boomer Chick

03-18-2005, 04:33 PM

Evangelicals Supporting Global Warming.... will they prove effectual?

http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/356/public/news618658.html

halva

03-18-2005, 09:14 PM

I will pass this message on to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, who are mostly supporters of Australian Prime Minister John Howard and whom I have been lobbying on these matters.

jayreynolds

03-19-2005, 05:32 AM

I will pass this message on to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, who are mostly supporters of Australian Prime Minister John Howard and whom I have been lobbying on these matters.
I understand that when Charlie goes in he wants to rename the Sunshine State "Kingsland".
Fat chance!

halva

03-19-2005, 06:03 AM

The first parliamentary recognition of the reality of Peak Oil emerges in Kingsland.

foot_soldier

03-19-2005, 10:35 PM

March 18, 2005
A sobering projection on sea-level rise
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=OCEANLEVELS-03-18-05&cat=AN

Oceans will rise at least 10 inches per century for several hundred years - imperiling coastal regions worldwide - even if emissions of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases were capped at today's levels, according to one of the world's foremost climate-change researchers.

Even if the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being belched into the sky could be stabilized now, sea levels would rise 10 to 20 inches per century for 400 years or more, said Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

"We've already done so much to the atmosphere that sea-level rise is just going to keep going, and there's just not much that we can do about it," Wigley said. "We'd better learn to live with those future changes and develop strategies to reduce our vulnerability."

Wigley and NCAR senior scientist Gerald Meehl report their latest findings about "climate-change commitment" in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

The concept of climate commitment has been around for about 20 years. What's new about the NCAR reports is that some of the latest, most sophisticated computer climate models are now confirming the dire predictions of earlier, cruder simulations.

"It's additional evidence that those initial findings were sound and that we need to pay attention," said Vivien Gornitz, a sea-level-rise expert at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. "Now's the time to get working on it."

The idea behind climate commitment is simple:

Carbon dioxide gas has a lifetime of about a century, so gases pumped into the air today will continue trapping heat long into the future.

That heat will warm the air, land surfaces and the ocean. As the heat creeps deeper and deeper into the ocean, the warmed water expands, resulting in sea-level rise.

"Because the ocean takes longer to warm up than the land or the air, the sea level will continue to rise over several centuries," said Meehl, who used two of NCAR's global-coupled models, or GCMS, in his study.

Melting of ice sheets and glaciers also will contribute to the rise.

"I think people have thought that if the problem gets bad enough, OK, we'll just hit the stop button on the greenhouse-gas increases, and that'll solve the problem," Meehl said. "But it's not that easy."

A few critics question the ability of climate models to accurately predict the types of changes described by Meehl and Wigley. One outspoken critic is Colorado State University climatologist Roger Pielke Sr.

"To present them (GCM results) as predictions is overstating their capabilities," Pielke said Thursday. "They are valuable tools to study climate processes but are not skillful climate prediction tools."

But Meehl said the latest-generation models are more realistic and reliable than their predecessors. And the results they yield agree, in general, with earlier predictions about sea-level rise.

Over the past century, global temperatures increased about 1 degree and sea levels rose 6 to 8 inches.

Humans now pump the equivalent of about 7 billion tons of carbon into the air each year in the form of carbon dioxide gas. Under a "business-as-usual" scenario in which little is done to curtail the growth of emissions, 20 billion tons of carbon will enter the atmosphere each year by 2100, Wigley said.

In his study, Meehl determined that if current concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be frozen now - an impossibility, given ongoing emissions - the planet would warm 1 degree and sea levels would rise at least 8 inches by 2100.

Under various scenarios involving continued emissions increases, the sea would rise 15 to 24 inches by 2100, according to Meehl's study.

In its 2001 climate-change update, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected a sea-level rise of 3.6 to 35.2 inches by 2100, with a best-guess estimate of 19.2 inches.

It's too late to avoid some future sea-level changes. But there's still time to avert the most drastic shifts if worldwide greenhouse emissions are cut below present levels, Meehl and Wigley said.

Boomer Chick

03-20-2005, 08:50 PM

On the other side of the global warming question .... and it sounds an awful lot like the Reynolds thinking, which is to neither judge it harshly nor applaud it..... just another way of looking at it.

Issues analysis
Common sense on global warming

March 19, 2005
Fred Hutchison
RenewAmerica analyst

When a controversial issue in science is politicized and seems to become a fad, does an ordinary person have the tools to judge whether it is likely to be good science, or junk science carried along by scare headlines and politically-correct institutional group think?

Well, the ordinary person has some advantages that academic scientists often lack — such as common sense, a disinterested objectivity, and freedom from peer pressure or political agenda. He does not need to worry about rejection of his doctoral thesis or denial of tenure if he says something heretical to establishment science. The ordinary person is not trained in the currently prevailing paradigms of institutional science, and he is able to see things that the intensely specialized graduate studies and tightly focused paradigms of the academic world tend to filter out.

With that in mind, let's take a look at global warming. First, we shall consider a "smell test" that an ordinary person can employ with the help of common sense. Then, if the global warming movement does not pass the smell test, we shall build upon scientific facts that are available to a bright college freshman to evaluate whether the global warming theory is likely to be valid.

The Smell Test

Liberal syndicated columnist Nicholas D. Kristof was once an enthusiastic environmentalist, but says, "I'm now skeptical of the movement's I-have-a-nightmare speeches." He said in a recent column, "The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that environmental groups are too often alarmists. They have an awful track record, so they have lost credibility." He recalls the warnings in the seventies that the Alaska oil pipeline would decimate caribou herds. The herds have increased five fold since then. Kristof also recalls panicky warnings in the seventies of global cooling and the disasters this would bring to the world. Allegedly, the meteorologists were nearly unanimous in their predictions of global cooling. Kristof mentions other scare warnings that did not come true, such as disastrous overpopulation in Asia, famines, nuclear winter, and radical changes in the weather. The things that disillusioned Kristof give us a simple smell test: 1) scare warnings of impending disaster; 2) assertions that scientists are unanimous; and 3) politicalized groups that have a bad track record in their predictions.

Let us add a fourth item to the smell test. When the conventional view is challenged, do the proponents refuse to answer the facts and logic of the challenge? One of the founding principles of empirical science is to attempt to falsify every hypothesis and accept only those hypotheses that cannot be refuted. The mark of good science is the willingness to discuss the intelligent criticisms of a hypothesis. The refusal to consider and discuss intelligent criticism based upon facts and logic is the mark of group-think junk science. The evasion of criticism is invariably accompanied by changing the subject.

As a fifth smell test, look for the following kinds of ploys of redirection: a) "You are not qualified to question science," b) "All scientists say X; therefore, anyone who questions X is not of science," c) "You must be motivated by political loyalties, economic vested interests, or religious beliefs if you question X," d) "You must be ignorant or lacking intellectual honesty if you question X," e) You desire a personal insult that demonizes you and casts you in the role of a monster, an enemy, or a fool. This is how Hollywood answers her critics: cast them as a demon or a crank in the next movie. It is an old cartoonist's technique that goes back to Michelangelo who is alleged to have painted the face of Pope Paul III on the devil in The Last Judgement.

Readers who wish to try the smell test might go to any Environmentalist or Global Warming interactive web site with an intelligent criticism and see if they can get an intelligent answer. If the Global Warming advocates flunk the smell test, should one join with Horatio and say "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"? Not at all. If we jump to hasty conclusions, we become just as bad as the partisans of junk science. If we fail to make a solid case of our own and manipulate science just to confute the junk science partisans, we acquire a bad smell of our own. The smell test is merely a warning signal that we need to investigate further. How shall we proceed? Start with the known facts and ask serious questions. What follows is my attempt to do just this with facts readily available to any college freshman.

Read the rest:

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

I don't have a reaction as yet, but I will after studying it carefully and determining if from my knowledge so far this explanation of the sciences involved passes muster. What is your reaction to this article?

halva

03-20-2005, 10:54 PM

On the other side of the global warming question .... and it sounds an awful lot like the Reynolds thinking, which is to neither judge it harshly nor applaud it..... just another way of looking at it.

When a controversial issue in science is politicized and seems to become a fad, does an ordinary person have the tools to judge whether it is likely to be good science, or junk science carried along by scare headlines and politically-correct institutional group think?

Politically-correct institutional group think operates with all sides in political and scientific controversies. "The ordinary person" will undoubtedly get his bearings from authority figures that are proposed to him or that he finds on his own initiative. But he will (or should) also try to exercise his own reasoning faculties to the extent he can.

Well, the ordinary person has some advantages that academic scientists often lack — such as common sense, a disinterested objectivity, and freedom from peer pressure or political agenda. He does not need to worry about rejection of his doctoral thesis or denial of tenure if he says something heretical to establishment science. The ordinary person is not trained in the currently prevailing paradigms of institutional science, and he is able to see things that the intensely specialized graduate studies and tightly focused paradigms of the academic world tend to filter out.

The ordinary person is also extremely susceptible to the demagogy of 'common sense', which may be what Hutchison is trying out on us here.

With that in mind, let's take a look at global warming. First, we shall consider a "smell test" that an ordinary person can employ with the help of common sense. Then, if the global warming movement does not pass the smell test, we shall build upon scientific facts that are available to a bright college freshman to evaluate whether the global warming theory is likely to be valid.

The Smell Test

Liberal syndicated columnist Nicholas D. Kristof was once an enthusiastic environmentalist, but says, "I'm now skeptical of the movement's I-have-a-nightmare speeches."

We are proceeding further here with another familiar trick of demagogues ("once I too was a naive socialist/Green/radical/idealist, but now I have grown up").

He said in a recent column, "The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that environmental groups are too often alarmists.

OK. I'm getting the picture. This was the criticism Raynolds also made of the BBC 'Global Warming' documentary. I acknowledged that there was some basis to this criticism, but explained the BBC's scare-mongering methodology (which was also employed in the film 'The Day after Tomorrow') as a method for trying to awake public opinion without touching on the whole dimension of deliberate 'mitigation' practices.

The closed-mindedness and defensiveness that the writer perceives among proponents of 'global warming' is something I myself perceive among the same people when they are asked to respond to the assertions of 'chemmies'. What is one to conclude from this?

Readers who wish to try the smell test might go to any Environmentalist or Global Warming interactive web site with an intelligent criticism and see if they can get an intelligent answer.

I think it is worth examining if the alleged defensiveness of global warming proponents is based on something other than fear of the political power of the fossil-fuel lobby, specifically fear of their ability to 'unleash the mob'. After all climate scientists are compromised by their involvement in unacknowledged 'mitigation' activities.

Let us look at the criticisms Hutchison directs against proponents of 'global warming'.
Do we want to call upon Jim Phelps to give his view? Or do we not want to do this?

By the way, I would like to remind all participants that I am now a moderator here, and I am not going to tolerate any personal flaming.

jayreynolds

03-21-2005, 04:07 AM

Let us look at the criticisms Hutchison directs against proponents of 'global warming'.
Do we want to call upon Jim Phelps to give his view? Or do we not want to do this?

By the way, I would like to remind all participants that I am now a moderator here, and I am not going to tolerate any personal flaming.

Sure, call upon my buddy Jimbo, I ve been waiting for him to get released from the sanitarium. Wayne, you can smell his bloody jars and give it a "test" for me.

moderator? You can't "remind" us of something we were never mindful of, but it's good for a laugh!

What the guy is trying to tell us is that scaremongering blows back on the monger, sure it buys some time with people easily manipulated by emotion, women mostly and the weak-minded, but emotion is of short duration, people get tired of it when dire predictions don't pan out.

Back in 2001, for example, when 'footsoldier' and the crew started the barium hoax, everybody went to thinking they were all going to die. Here we are four years later, life expectancy is grreter than ever.

Scares just don't have staying power withy the general public. Sure they like to go see scary movie, but the next night they are out there walking in the dark, going to sleep without checking under the bed again. The exception, of course, are the adrenaline junkies who get a rush out of it, but thye basically neutralize themselves, because like the lab monkey that gets a cocaine reward whenever he wishes soon goes into la-la-land so have they. Mark Sky is a perfect example. 'footsoldier' the same. All they really accomplish is to box themselves into a self-serving prison of their own creation.

halva

03-21-2005, 04:25 AM

Scares just don't have staying power withy the general public. Sure they like to go see scary movie, but the next night they are out there walking in the dark, going to sleep without checking under the bed again. The exception, of course, are the adrenaline junkies who get a rush out of it, but thye basically neutralize themselves, because like the lab monkey that gets a cocaine reward whenever he wishes soon goes into la-la-land so have they. Mark Sky is a perfect example. 'footsoldier' the same. All they really accomplish is to box themselves into a self-serving prison of their own creation.

I can't see any similarity from any viewpoint between Mark Sky and Footsoldier.

I've course I am subjective. Mark Sky has behaved as an enemy towards me and Footsoldier as an ally and scientific guide.

Boomer Chick

03-21-2005, 06:26 PM

Frankly, I've rather appreciated the non-contentious atmosphere around here of late. Jay, your statement about emotions and women was not appreciated. Women cannot be put into a cage anymore, or box, or any kind of thought-contrivance. Please don't make yourself out to be a misogynist... because I know in my heart, you're not. And perhaps you feel you can "get " to Halva with such sentiments, but he seems quite oblivious to such things.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~11851~2773339,00.html

Article Published: Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 7:24:52 AM PST

Global warming can't account for Earth's vast climate changes

By William Rusher

LATELY I have been reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything,' a breezy pop summary of scientific knowledge from the big bang down to us, by Bill Bryson. Published in 2003 by Broadway books, it rapidly became a bestseller, and I can see why. However well-educated you may consider yourself, it will tell you far more than you ever knew about the origins of the cosmos, the Earth, life and mankind.
For example, you may think that the ice ages that have afflicted the Earth arrived and departed gradually, over hundreds of thousands of years. But ice cores from Greenland tell a very different, very turbulent story. According to Bryson, "for most of its recent history Earth has been nothing like the stable and tranquil place that civilization has known, but rather has lurched violently between periods of warmth and brutal chill.

"Toward the end of the last big glaciation, some 12,000 years ago, Earth began to warm, and quite rapidly, but then abruptly plunged back into bitter cold for a thousand years or so. ... At the end of this thousand- year onslaught, average temperatures leapt again, by as much as seven degrees in 20 years, which doesn't sound terribly dramatic, but is equivalent to changing the climate of Scandinavia for that of the Mediterranean in just two decades.'

What most alarmed Bryson is that, with all of the current available data, ongoing research and modern technology, scientists have absolutely no idea what natural events could have rattled the planet's "thermometer' so violently.

Contrast this description of the recent history of the Earth's climate with the antics of the global-warming hysterics. They have gone into near-catatonic fits because their dubious computer models predict that the temperature of the Earth's surface will rise between 1 and 3 degrees centigrade over the next century. They are so horrified at that possibility, and at the further possibility that a fraction of that increase may be caused by human beings (notably through large discharges of carbon dioxide), that they want whole sectors of the global economy cut back to prevent this "global warming.'

Bryson has no special axe to grind in the global-warming controversy, but he does quote Elizabeth Kolbert, writing in The New Yorker magazine, as pointing out that "when you are confronting a fluctuating and unpredictable climate, 'the last thing you'd want to do is conduct a vast unsupervised experiment on it.''

People who are determined to worry about the near future of the Earth's climate would do better to concentrate on the possible collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. In the past 50 years, Bryson points out, the waters around it have warmed by 2.5 degrees centigrade, and collapses have increased dramatically. Because of the underlying geology of the area, a large-scale collapse is all the more possible. If so, "sea levels globally would rise and pretty quickly by between 15 and 20 feet on average.'

The only trouble is that not even the Sierra Club can bring itself to blame the warming of the Antarctic waters in the past half-century on American industry, and that takes all the fun (not to mention sense) out of demanding production cutbacks to stop it.

The simple fact is that the Earth's climate fluctuates, to a degree and owing to causes far more vast than any specified by the global-warming alarmists. We should respect that fact, and not permit these fluctuations to be tampered with by a bunch of hysterics who have no idea what they may be unloosing in the name of their cockeyed political agenda.

William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.

***

Did you like this one, Jay? Stu is whining over at Mav's as though he was kicked off. He decided to quit and without IS, what does he have to do? Therefore, his prime purpose was to "fight" instead of contribute to knowledge. Jay, because you remained, I know that you, although you enjoy the "fight", actually appreciate the truth. Is it possible to just let FS live peacefully and continue her contributions here unmolested (verbally), meaning letting go of your constant harping on your hunches or is it haunches? LOL! Perhaps you should look at yourself and figure out why you might not be able to let this particular aspect go. ?

Well, just because climate change may indeed be cyclic, doesn't mean we shouldn't be responsible for the pollutants and chemicals we add to the atmosphere. The Ozone situation was not created by natural causes..... we know this! The various acid changes in the seas were not caused naturally, neither was acid rain. The corals bleaching, the plankton dying.... natural? NOPE! So, as with many things, the "either or" "black and white" thinking doesn't go too far. Both sides of the global warming issue have valid points: one -- cycles are repeating beyond our control, some of them with the potential to create sudden climate changes....... and two---man has contributed and continues to contribute particulates and gases to the atmosphere that locally and world wide affect the climate in various ways. Each side is not exclusive of the other.

Boomer Chick

03-21-2005, 06:39 PM

jayreynolds

03-21-2005, 08:49 PM

What a joke.

Boomer Chick

03-21-2005, 10:21 PM

halva

03-21-2005, 10:28 PM

What would you like me to do as moderator?

jayreynolds

03-22-2005, 04:00 AM

halva

03-22-2005, 04:19 AM

BC, what would you like me to do as moderator?

Would you like me to delete Raynolds' last two postings?

Actually I've already deleted the first, since it concerned only me.

jayreynolds

03-22-2005, 05:26 AM

Once in awhile I use the google news search feature as a gauge of human opinion.
This morning the search was "global dimming", with interesting results:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=global+dimming&btnG=Search+News

amazing how the whole subject just dropped off the news wires!

Boomer Chick

03-22-2005, 08:09 AM

This is a debate forum, contention is part of debate, so you had better get used to it.

Don't misconsture my comments about women being more susceptible to emotional manipulation than men. It doesn't show that I hate women at all. It is a fact, and accounts of the larger proportion of women involved in the chemtrails hoax as cult members, and the propensity for becoming victims of mass sociogenic illness. There are brain differences as well as developmental differences which cause women to be more sensitive, perceptive, and expressive emotionally than men.

As far as my questioning of 'footsoldier' goes, isn't it odd that in one sentence you applaud me for seeking the truth, yet in the next you suggest I should not seek the truth which she has yet to tell?

I'll admit that on the surface, a liar "unmolested" by the truth might seem to "live peacefully", but how do those affected by the lie live? Certainly not in peace, for you know who the father of lies is, and how lies are incompatible with freedom.

no, don't ask me to simply "let this particular aspect" of a lie go unquestioned.

I refuse.

And what might this "sociogenic illness" be? And please find me a link to the term as well -- "sociogenic illness." Might I be able to google this? I noticed you used "hoax" and "cult" in the same sentence as "chemtrail." For women to be more "sensitive," "perceptive," and emotionally expressive does not then translate necessarily into your stated thesis of the propensity to then join cults, be easily manipulated, or prone to "sociogenic illness." I think I'll google that term right now. BRB!

Here we have an article on mass "sociogenic illness" and I would point out the blue highlighted information regarding susceptible populations. There are none. And BTW, considering the following rather professional definition of "mass sociogenic illness" which includes physical symptoms, your use of the term so far is inaccurate. It is a local group phenomena within a certain time frame exhibiting symptoms (mainly physical) of a particular range. I did notice the female mention. But your use of this kind of term is totally inappropriate to chemtrail researchers, sorry.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/1/36
Mass sociogenic illness
Erica Weir
CMAJ

Background and epidemiology: Mass sociogenic illness refers to the "rapid spread of illness signs and symptoms affecting members of a cohesive group, originating from a nervous system disturbance involving excitation, loss or alteration of function, whereby physical complaints that are exhibited unconsciously have no corresponding organic aetiology."1 It occurs in the context of a credible threat that provokes great anxiety, such as a noxious odour in a school amid fears of chemical warfare or bioterrorism. In standard psychiatric nomenclature, mass sociogenic illness is subsumed under the general heading of somatoform disorder and subcategorized as "conversion disorder hysterical neurosis, conversion type." In the literature, it is synonymously termed mass psychogenic disorder or epidemic hysteria and distinguished from collective delusions by the presence of illness symptoms.2

Most physicians, through experience or training in psychiatry, are aware of individual cases of "hysteria" or somatoform disorders. They are less educated and knowledgeable about epidemic hysteria, even though a review of the literature reveals over 200 published accounts of mass responses to situations involving suspected poisonings and other events.3One example in September 1998 involved 800 children in Jordan who believed they had suffered from the side effects of tetanus–diphtheria toxoid vaccine administered at school; 122 of the children were admitted to hospital. For the vast majority, symptoms resulted not from the vaccine but from psychogenic illness.3

The impact of such events is underappreciated and underreported. They place significant financial burdens on emergency services, public health and environmental agencies and the affected building or occupation site, which is often closed for days or weeks.

Part of the difficulty in recognizing outbreaks of mass sociogenic illness has to do with its diverse nature.1 A historical review of these events suggests that the features of mass sociogenic illnesses tend to mirror popular social and cultural preoccupations that define distinct eras and reflect unique social beliefs about the nature of the world. Before the 20th century most reports of mass sociogenic illness involved motor hysteria incubated by exposure to long-standing religious, academic or workplace discipline.1 These produced outbreaks of convulsions, contractures, tremors, paralysis and laughing. In the 20th century and on to the present, strange odours presumed to be an environmental contaminant or toxic gas from a bioterrorist or chemical warfare attack have been commonly blamed in episodes of mass hysteria, producing breathlessness, nausea, headache, dizziness and weakness in affected people. For instance, during the 1990 Gulf War the first missile attack on Israel by Iraq was widely feared to contain chemical weapons. Although such fears were unfounded, about 40% of civilians in the immediate vicinity of the attack reported breathing problems.1

Clinical management: The confluence of 8 symptoms or conditions typically indicates mass sociogenic illness and permits a presumptive diagnosis while investigations are underway. These include symptoms with no plausible organic basis; symptoms that are transient and benign; symptoms with rapid onset and recovery; occurrence in a segregated group; the presence of extraordinary anxiety; symptoms that are spread via sight, sound or oral communication; a spread that moves down the age scale, beginning with older or higher-status people; and a preponderance of female participants.1

When faced with the prospect of an outbreak of mass sociogenic illness, physicians should involve public health officials in the investigation. A prompt diagnosis is problematic because controversy often surrounds outbreaks and time is needed to analyze environmental and medical test results. It is often advisable to close the building or area until negative results are returned. This action serves to control the outbreak by reducing anxiety levels and temporarily dispersing the group.1,4

Treatment involves identifying and reducing or eliminating the stress-related stimulus.4

Prevention: No one or group is immune from mass sociogenic illness. Attempts to identify predisposing factors and susceptibilities have produced conflicting results.1 Understanding the historical shifts in the manifestations of these outbreaks, the fears and uncertainties that preoccupy current cultures and the distinctive features of mass sociogenic illness that appear to transcend historical context will assist in more rapid recognition and treatment of outbreaks.

References

Bartholomew R, Wessley S. Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness: from possessed nuns to chemical and biological terrorism fears. Br J Psychiatry 2002;180:300-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Bartholomew RE. Epidemic hysteria: a review of the published literature [letter]. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151: 206-7.[Medline]
KharabshehS, Al-Otoum H, Clements J, Abbas A, Khuri-Bulos N, Belbesi A, et al. Mass psychogenic illness following tetanus–diphtheria toxoid vaccination in Jordan. Bull World Health Organ 2001;79(8):764-70.[Medline]
Jones TF. Mass psychogenic illness: role of the individual physician. Am Fam Physician 2000;62:2649-53,2655-6.[Medline]

***

continued....

Boomer Chick

03-22-2005, 08:10 AM

Simple definition:

mass sociogenic illness
n.
An illness occurring in a group of people with a shared social setting, such as a school, workplace, or military group, and characterized by a usually rapid onset and symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, fainting, headache, or skin rash.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

***
On cults:
http://www.emro.who.int/Publications/EMHJ/0504/09.htm

***

You have exaggerated your claims, Jay, using inappropriate psycho babble. Since coming to this board I have not witnessed any ongoing hysteria from FS or anyone else. You are now verging on harassment of this poster. She has been posting articles and discussing the topics of our various forums with consciencious aplomb. Yes, you dedicate yourself to the truth when it comes to science and particular verifiable subjects, but considering your constant insistence that she reveal something of which you have no proof, does not apply to our discussions, and is in the past..... I suggest you take the hint and refrain from broadbrushstroking women and FS in your claims. If you wish to contact her privately and continue to ask her to reveal something you suspect, then do so, but on this board I'm finding you quite "out of place" with your insistence on this. If she was harming and spreading some kind of lies right now on our board you would have the right to continue in outing them. But she is not and therefore you have reached a dead end here.

Definition of cult:
http://www.greatdreams.com/believrs.htm

Jay, you have used the terms "hoax," and "cult" along with your other psycho babble and I must point out that you have used all of these terms inappropriately and in an exaggerated way. In no way has the chemtrail research movement been or arises into the realm of social behavior in terms of "cults." In no way does wondering about the quality of our clouds and atmosphere, even by various individuals on the net, Carnicom et al involve cultism of any kind, nor a form of hysteria as you have intimated in your use of the term "mass sociogenic illness." You are indeed the king of research and debunking, but please use some common sense and temper yourself with appropriate word usage, not to sound too much like an English teacher.

I asked you to look within to find the reason for your overzealousness concerning FS, and please do this privately. The origins of a group looking for barium and the so-called undercover links must be let go and left in the past. It's not appropriate to now, and on this board regarding our present research. It simply will get you banned and if that's what you want.... go ahead in this same head banging style of yours which to all reading and all participating is indeed a kind of harrassment. I hope you can see this.

Wishing you the best because I know you will listen to reason at some level. Your word usage reflects a propensity in this particular case of over emotionalism on your part, not FS's.

jayreynolds

03-22-2005, 11:06 AM

I asked you to look within to find the reason for your overzealousness concerning FS, and please do this privately. The origins of a group looking for barium and the so-called undercover links must be let go and left in the past. It's not appropriate to now, and on this board regarding our present research. It simply will get you banned and if that's what you want.... go ahead in this same head banging style of yours which to all reading and all participating is indeed a kind of harrassment. I hope you can see this..

Nope, I don't see it that way at all. I find it quite telling that when you and Wayne don't like something, you start threats of banning. What is it with you people?

The fact is that 'footsoldier', right here at ariannaonline, has admitted to having been the editor of this document:
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa

The document contains many references to "CLIMATE CHANGE", "WEATHER", "OZONE", and other terms which ARE INDEED relevant to the topic of this thread- "CLIMATE CHANGE"!

In the document linked above, 'footsoldier' and her cronies made many claims, all of which relate directly to the atmosphere, which is where our climate takes place. Their claims include:

"It is believed that barium salt, polymer fibers, and other chemicals in the atmosphere are the chemicals and physical irritants that are either directly or indirectly responsible, for the recent nationwide epidemic increase in cases of nose bleed, asthma, allergies, and upper respiratory symptoms including pneumonia. Chemicals illegally sprayed into the atmosphere are producing atmospheric and ground conditions detrimental to human and animal health but favorable to the growth of harmful molds and fungus. These conditions are not conducive to good health. The soluble salts of barium, an alkaline earth metal, are toxic in mammalian systems. They are absorbed rapidly from the gastrointestinal tract and are deposited in the muscles, lungs, and bone. No case data is available from the medical community on the long term effects of barium in the human body. Barium salt in the atmosphere is used for weather control and the Radio Frequency Mission Planner (RFMP), radio wave propagation, and ducting used in battlefield warfare."
-There is growing evidence that aerosol aluminum compounds are being systematically released at higher altitudes above 30,000 feet, and is directly related to the ozone problem.
-Aluminum compound is being discharged by aircraft at higher altitudes, in a separate project, for filtering and reflecting radiation, including ultra violet, from the sun. Polymer fibers are being found in various locations subsequent to observed incidence of aerosol discharge by subsonic aircraft."

Don't try and create some bogus ploy in which you now claim that it was "in the past", "not appropriate", or "must be let go".

The website is till extant, it is mirrored at more than one location, the claims have become gospel and precept of the chemtrail cult. It is not something whch has been forgotten, it is repeated frequently and quoted widely. Wayne accepts virtually all of it and spreads the same hoax continually.

And speaking of hoaxes, either it is or it isn't. The persons who can state for sure are the ones involved, I wish to know the truth of the matter, and nothing piques my curiosity more than secrecy, evasiveness, and non-responsiveness. If the whole thing were laid out in the open for all to see, it would be over, and I would indeed have no further questions on the matter.

But for now all we can say is that the claims were made, either they are true, or not, and whether you like it, or not, the truth needs to be heard, as Wayne put it, through "honest, open debate". 'footsoldier' admitted taking part in producing the document, and it is pure sophistry to try and stymie anyone from asking about it. By the way, I am not the only one who has asked these questions here at arianaonline. Though you feign to deny interest, if you are interested in the true facts of the matter, you should join me in asking questions about it.

Boomer Chick

03-22-2005, 06:33 PM

Global Warming Could Trigger Ant Invasions

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7170

:rolleyes:

***

Billion people face water shortages, warns UN

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10116789

23.03.05 1.00pm
By David Usborne in New York

The world was put on notice yesterday to expect a higher incidence of catastrophic flooding and droughts as global warming affects rainfall patterns while, at the same time, more than a billion people in developing countries are facing dramatic shortages of clean water for drinking and bathing.

The warnings came as the United Nations marked this year's Water Day by launching a ten-year campaign to combat shortages of clean water around the globe, dubbed the 'Water for Life Decade'.

The organisation said that 1.1 billion people still lack sufficient water with dire results for health and food supplies.

"People who can turn on a tap and have safe and clean water to drink, to cook with and to bathe in often take it for granted," commented Dr Lee Jong-Wook, head of the UN's World Health Organisation.

"And yet more than one billion of our fellow human beings have little choice but to use potentially harmful sources of water."

In a vivid demonstration of the dangers of drought, the King of Thailand, Bhumipol Adulyadej, attended a cloud-seeding operation, which involves shooting chemicals into the sky to spur rainfall, as 71 out of the country's 76 provinces contend with the effects of a protracted dearth of rain.

Chinese authorities meanwhile said water prices were likely to rise 20 per cent, after a 25 per cent hike last year, because of a continuing national shortage. President Jacques Chirac of France warned a UNESCO conference in Paris that unequal sharing of water resources among African countries risked exacerbating conflicts on the continent.

"Water is abundant in Africa, but unequally shared," the President said, urging a fresh mobilisation by governments to address the issue.

In London, Hillary Benn, the Secretary for International Development, said the Government would double funding for water and sanitation projects in Africa over three years.

British funding in 11 key countries, including Ghana, Malawi and Zambia, would increase from pounds 47.5 million this year to pounds 95 million, he said.

Ravi Narayanan, director of the British-based charity, WaterAid, said Mr Benn's move was welcome and "not a day too soon. His intention to work closely with partner countries in Africa is another step in the right direction.

"One size does not fit all and we need country-level action plans addressing actual priority needs rather than international policy prescriptions."

The UN will use the decade-long campaign to try to hold governments to pledges made as part of the UN's Millennium Goals on water.

At the Millennium Summit in 2000, leaders promised to halve the number of people lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015.

"We need to increase water efficiency, especially in agriculture," UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said in a Water Day message. "We need to free women and girls from the daily chore of hauling water, often over great distances. We must involve them in decision-making on water management."

Like President Chirac, the Secretary General also warned of the dangers that water shortages would turn governments and countries against each other.

But so far the progress on finding international aid for water-related projects has been discouraging.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said that public aid for water improvements in developing countries declined from US$2.7 billion in 1997 to only US$1.4 billion in 2002 and has remained at that level ever since.

According to latest UN statistics, while 1.1 billion people around the world lack safe water to drink, as many as 2.4 billion have no access to water for decent sanitation.

Moreover, about 3 million deaths a year are attributable to poor water supplies. Meeting the targets by the Millennium Goals would require an extraordinary effort.

It would mean giving proper sanitation facilities to an additional 300,000 people every day and clean drinking water to nearly 150,000 more people each day also.

The most impassioned plea for greater action came yesterday from Carol Bellamy, the director of UNICEF, who underlined that 400 million children in the world - almost one in five of all children - lack even the bare minimum of safe water they need to survive.

"Our failure to provide a mere two buckets of safe water a day to every child is an affront to human conscience," Ms Bellamy said. "Far too many are dying as a result of our inertia, and their deaths are being met with a resounding silence."

Mr Jong-Wook of the WHO pointed in particular to deaths from diarrhoeal disease. Calling it a "silent humanitarian crisis," he said that diarrhoea is killing as many as 30,000 people a week.

Announcing Britain's increased funding for Africa, Mr Benn told attendees at a conference organised by the Royal Geographic Society that the Government was in part responding to the recent decline in funding for water projects.

Identifying the 11 countries earmarked for increased action in Africa, he said, "We will make sure that each of these countries has a core donor group on water and sanitation. We will quickly map what donors and governments are currently doing, what more needs to be done and make water and sanitation a central focus of discussion with governments in each of these countries."

- INDEPENDENT

***

Chirac: Don't fret over arms to China
03/23/2005

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200503230135.html

Excerpt:

Although Chirac did mention that relations between Europe and the United States were improving, he also called on Washington to follow a path of greater international cooperation, especially on such issues as global warming.

***
San Francisco to Host World Mayors for Green Cities Events

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-22-09.asp

SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 22, 2005 (ENS) - Mayor Gavin Newsom announced on Monday that mayors from around the world will meet in San Francisco June 1-5 to debate and sign historic accords for Green Cities at the 2005 United Nations World Environment Day conference.

Newsom made the announcement at City Hall flanked by San Francisco’s former mayors U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Willie L. Brown Jr. Along with Frank Jordan and Art Agnos, the former mayors are co-chairs of the World Environment Day Host Committee.

Those slated to attend the conference include UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme Klaus Toepfer, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and mayors from London, Shanghai, Kabul, Buenos Aires, Sydney, Phnom Penh, Jakarta, Rome, and Istanbul.

During the conference, the international gathering of mayors will share ideas and experiences to develop a set of Urban Environmental Accords, which will provide a roadmap for environmental improvements in cities.

“This is the first United Nations conference to focus on urban environment, so I am very pleased that San Francisco’s former mayors can join me as co-chairs of this event,” Newsom said. “The accords that we mayors sign will leave a legacy that advances environmental wellbeing for cities around the world.”

The United Nations Environment Programme awarded the conference to San Francisco, the first time the conference has ever been held in the United States. It is being hosted by the Mayor and the San Francisco Department of the Environment.

“Mayors have the power to shape the future of the world’s environment,” said Jared Blumenfeld, director of the San Francisco Department of the Environment. “With the majority of the Earth’s population living in cities, decisions made at World Environment Day will have far-reaching effect.”

Beyond the official calendar of the conference, Newsom noted that more than 150 community activities are scheduled around World Environment Day. The activities range from special organic menu selections at Bay Area restaurants to a display of artwork made from recycled material. In addition, there will be a Green Cities Expo with booths and exhibits at Fort Mason June 3 through 5.

“I look forward to working closely with leaders of the world’s major cities to establish guidelines for environmentally sensible urban life,” Newsom said. “This conference is a remarkable opportunity for all of us.”

The Accords cover urban design, transportation, energy, open space, recycling, health, and water - they can be reviewed and commented on at: urbanaccords.org. The accords will be signed at City Hall on June 5.

:D
* * *

Well, some good news and bad news! Such as it is. Some super interesting articles required a subscription so I couldn't post them for you! Drat!

halva

03-22-2005, 10:23 PM

Halva also has been communicating with a scientist who says there's no proof to it either. I've looked and couldn't find evidence, you know there's no evidence, so given that there is quite a long list of researchers and one scientist at least, she could petition (with said information) the site to take the page down. IF SHE IS ABLE and IF SHE WANTS TO.

BC there is a big difference between what I believe and what I claim to be able to prove.

By the way, my deleting of your posting above in reply to Reynolds was not intentional. If it happens again start complaining.

Boomer Chick

03-22-2005, 10:49 PM

Halva,

Did you accidentally delete it? Or did someone else delete it? Could you please clarify this?

Was I not on topic or something? Did you hit the wrong button?

Just curious. I do wonder what other articles I had posted besides my response to Jay.

Oh well, no biggy! I guess I went on and on quite a bit.

Did you read the whole post Halva, before you deleted it? If you deleted it accidentally? And if you did read it, did you find anything worthy of me repeating?

halva

03-22-2005, 11:04 PM

I deleted it. I hit the wrong button.

I had read it. You were trying to give advice to Jay Reynolds about how he could be a more effective chemtrails debunker, like some of the climate scientists we have been talking to lately.

I think in my comment I explained my attitude to what you were writing, but that had nothing to do with why I deleted it, which was purely accidental.

I think all of us, apart from Jay Reynolds, are in agreement that the old story about what happened with Deborah five years ago is an irrelevant bore, that even if we don't know or understand all the details, we know that it has little to do with what we are interested in talking about now. It seems that the views of all the people who were engaged in that discussion have moved on. Only Reynolds is still stuck there, for some reason he is free to talk about at Mav's if he wants to, but not here.

Is this censorship???

Yes.

jayreynolds

03-23-2005, 04:40 AM

Halva, CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You are now a mod !!!! OMG !!!! (laughing! ) :D

How does it feel? When you first mentioned it, it really didn't register!

Now it will get interesting!!! This is too much!

It probably feels good to have such incredible power that he can create rules whenever he likes.

jayreynolds

03-23-2005, 04:50 AM

Only Reynolds is still stuck there, for some reason he is free to talk about at Mav's if he wants to, but not here.

Is this censorship???

Yes.
If claims are made regarding climate change, which is the topic of this thread, I will continue asking questions about them, Wayne. I will not be censored.

halva

03-23-2005, 05:05 AM

Be my guest.

Boomer Chick

03-24-2005, 09:32 AM

Europe Prepares Its Case against Wolfowitz
By Stefania Bianchi
Inter Press Service

Wednesday 23 March 2005

Brussells - Paul Wolfowitz, the controversial U.S. nominee to take over as World Bank president, will face some of his biggest critics during a trip to Brussels.

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union (EU), announced Monday (March 21) that Wolfowitz had agreed to visit Brussels, as members of the European Parliament (MEPs) launched a campaign to block his appointment.

U.S. President George W. Bush announced Wolfowitz as the U.S. nomination to head the global lending institution for developing countries last week.

Wolfowitz, who is currently the deputy secretary of defence, will meet Louis Michel, European commissioner for development and humanitarian aid during the visit, and will explain his views on development to EU officials.

"I am looking forward to meeting Mr Wolfowitz in Brussels to listen to his ideas on development, the main challenges ahead, and his vision for the World Bank as a major actor," Michel said in a statement last week.

"As the world's largest aid donor, the European Union has built a strategic partnership with the World Bank to pursue its main goal, which is poverty alleviation. This institution plays a crucial role in addressing the development challenges, a huge task that can only be tackled by a joint effort of the international community," he added.

No date for the meeting has been set, and it remains unclear whether the meeting will be held before or after the World Bank board meets to pick a successor to outgoing president James Wolfensohn, whose term ends May 31.

U.S. nominations to the World Bank presidency are usually unchallenged, as are European nominations to lead the International Monetary Fund. But since the announcement of the nomination of Wolfowitz for the post, a Europe-wide campaign against his choice has been gaining momentum.

Wolfowitz is considered one of the Bush administration's most hawkish figures. He was a leading advocate of the decision to go to war with Iraq.

Wolfowitz insists he is not looking to shift the Bank's agenda to a more political one, but development groups and some leading EU officials are demanding that his candidature is withdrawn.

Senior MEPs led by Green MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Liberal Andrew Duff, Christian Democrat Alain Lamassoure and Socialist Hannes Swoboda tabled a written declaration Monday asking EU member states not to accept his nomination.

"We object both to the process of the nomination and to its substance. Wolfowitz is an unabashed right-winger whose policies are out of line with those of the European Union. He will behave like an American pro-consul and will never command the trust of the global development community," Andrew Duff says on his parliamentary website.

Labour MEP and development policy expert Glenys Kinnock is urging the EU to use its voting powers to challenge the United States.

"The EU has more voting weight in the World Bank than the United States. It should use it. The idea that someone with no experience nor understanding of development can be parachuted into this job beggars belief," she said in a statement.

"He is a renowned neo-conservative hawk who has, for instance, shown that he believes that you can build democracy by force if necessary. He is the nomination of a government which opposes international positions on climate change and is far from positive on its responsibilities to promote trade justice, debt reform or the doubling of overseas aid levels."

Development non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also calling for the withdrawal of Wolfowitz's nomination.

"This is a terrible choice," David Waskow, director of the international programme at Friends of the Earth-U.S. said in a statement. "At a time of immense global challenges, Wolfowitz has no relevant expertise in alleviating poverty or addressing critical environmental issues like global warming. He is the wrong person for this job." "There's never been a time when the world was in greater need of cooperative leadership. Instead, Bush has put forward one of the principal architects of his administration's unilateralist policies. Wolfowitz has shown nothing but disdain for collaboration with other countries."

Concord, a confederation of European NGOs for relief and development, has launched its own multi-country petition to European heads of state challenging the choice of Wolfowitz.

The network of NGOs says Wolfowitz is a "very controversial choice borne of an untransparent and undemocratic process."

The group says the petition has already met "an unprecedented response", and within 30 hours attracted 1,255 signatories from 68 countries. The petition will be sent to heads of state.

EU finance ministers were due to discuss Wolfowitz's nomination at a summit in Brussels Tuesday, but it is unlikely that the ministers will reach a conclusion over his candidature.

***

Not a good choice for the relief of poverty caused by the associated pressures and situations regarding drought, famine, and other climate-related consequences.

I'll keep you updated on this!

foot_soldier

03-24-2005, 09:42 AM

....."There's never been a time when the world was in greater need of cooperative leadership. Instead, Bush has put forward one of the principal architects of his administration's unilateralist policies. Wolfowitz has shown nothing but disdain for collaboration with other countries.".....
Paul Wolfowitz is a signatory to the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century - for starters:

A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php

Boomer Chick

03-24-2005, 10:04 AM

Paul Wolfowitz is a signatory to the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century - for starters:

A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php

YES! I've studied the neocons for years! Inside Washington buzz says that Wolfie is on the outs with the Big Oil constituency in the Washington power elite due to their (neocons) desiring to privatize Iraqi oil against the Big Oil's wishes (I'll find you link on that) and OF COURSE Wolfie's a signed member of the PNAC organization! That's the basic underlying definition of a neocon!

His nomination to the WB is considered a demotion in terms of power and decision and policy- making at the Washington level.

I've blogged and debated about the neocons and their agenda regarding dominating space, war mongering, and other inhumane and crazy policies for years, now! Karen Kwiatkowski, O'Neil, Clarke, and many others have outed the nuts! Democracy Now. org does a good job in following the neocons.

They're going down!

Boomer Chick

03-24-2005, 10:11 AM

Boomer Chick

03-24-2005, 12:43 PM

More on Wolfie from the Euro community:

France "Le Monde"

http://www.watchingamerica.com/lemonde000014.html

This is a great world wide news site watching the news in other countries, especially regarding their opinions and coverage of the U.S. ! Plenty of various articles on Wolfie!

http://www.watchingamerica.com/

foot_soldier

03-24-2005, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
.....Fiddle away crazies.... you will eventually pay your debt to the whole world!.....
Personally I will be grateful to simply live what's left of my life outside of the steadily expanding power structure of the neo-conservative cum fundamentalist Culture of Fear and Loathing. Those whose view of the world is predicated on the beliefs that "all are evil" and "it's a dog-eat-dog world" are going to see exactly what they expect to see. Let them. I really don't care anymore as long as they stay out of the way of those who see a more positive future and are trying to support that as a real possibility.

By the way, I think Greg Palast has done some excellent work on exposing the sordid underpinnings of the neo-conservative agenda. There are many others who are doing similarly excellent work.

jayreynolds

03-25-2005, 05:24 AM

Personally I will be grateful to simply live what's left of my life outside of the steadily expanding power structure of the neo-conservative cum fundamentalist Culture of Fear and Loathing. Those whose view of the world is predicated on the beliefs that "all are evil" and "it's a dog-eat-dog world" are going to see exactly what they expect to see. Let them. I really don't care anymore as long as they stay out of the way of those who see a more positive future and are trying to support that as a real possibility.

By the way, I think Greg Palast has done some excellent work on exposing the sordid underpinnings of the neo-conservative agenda. There are many others who are doing similarly excellent work.
Footsoldier, I see you are quoting me and so will respond. Yes, it is undeniable that all are evil, and none are good, that includes you and me! God says this, so you better believe it.

Now as far as dog-eat-dog, yes, true again. But the terrorists you would have run Iraq in the absence of forces for good seem to have run up against some dogs that aren't exactly willing to stand still and be eaten, or post useless lies on mesageboards.
http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=2100

My brother-in law, an Iraqi born but now naturalized American, told me this would happen about a year ago. He was right. He is there rebuilding that country's most precious resource, which isn't oil at all, but water.

jayreynolds

03-25-2005, 02:56 PM

Greg Palast broke the story on the neocons verses the big oil in the battle over Iraq oil .... and BTW, the plans for the oil and the invasion were in the hopper long before 9/11 !

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/21/1455245

And the metaphor is Nero fiddling while Rome burns! Peak Oil is reality and if our nation lags in transitioning to other energies we will all suffer! But wars and death in the name of oil is just hunky dory, heh? Fiddle away crazies.... you will eventually pay your debt to the whole world!

I thought about this here article and reread it just now. You know, the funny thing is, Greg Palast never really got around to saying which option, a state-run oil company orprivatization would be better for Iraq. But then again, on a full examination, his whole piece falls flat.

Bush pushed through Iraqi elections despite worldwide calls for them to be put off. The elctions gave the Iraqi people the chance to write their constitution in any way they want, and to deal with the question of whether to privatize their resources or not.

So, in the final analysis, despite all Palast wrote, the point is totally moot. Bush gave complete control of Iraq's oil to the Iraqi's. They can decide to do with it as they wish.

No wonder Palast didn't ever come out and say what will, or even what he thinks should happen to Iraq's oil.

It now belongs to the Iraqi people to do whatever they damn well please!

And the oil isn't Saddam's(or oil-for-food) to plunder as he wishes anymore. How did that happen, anyways................?

jayreynolds

03-25-2005, 04:09 PM

Doing some further research, looks like Greg Palast is merely plagiarizing previous work.
Go figure..................................
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0212riftemerges.htm

foot_soldier

03-25-2005, 04:52 PM

March 25, 2005
The Boston Globe: Editorial

Hot air and global warming
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/25/hot_air_and_global_warming/

EVERY TIME the world calls for action on climate change, the United States emits more White House gases. The latest puff came from James Connaughton, the director of environmental quality, during last week's conference of 20 nations that met in London to attempt once again to make global warming a global priority.

At the conference, British economic minister Gordon Brown said, ''Climate change is a consequence of the build-up of greenhouse gases over the past 200 years in the atmosphere and virtually all these emissions came from the rich countries. Indeed, we became rich through those emissions." Connaughton's response, in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation, was, ''We're still working on the issue of causation."

Brown said, ''We now have sufficient evidence that human-made climate change is the most far-reaching and almost certainly the most threatening of all the environmental challenges facing us." Connaughton's response as to what he referred as ''the extent to which humans are a factor," was, ''They may be."

Brown said, ''The industrialized countries must take responsibility first in reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases." Connaughton complained instead that the target in the Kyoto treaty for the United States to reduce emissions ''was so unreasonable in our ability to meet it that the only we could have met it was to shift energy-intensive manufacturing to other countries."

Two days after dismissing coalition building, the United States went back to emissions building. The Senate, by a vote of 51-49, finally approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On efforts to stop global warming, Connaughton said, ''We are trying now to find a portfolio in which three words are important: technology, technology, and technology."

He meant drilling, drilling, drilling. Two years ago the National Academies of Science said that even with improved technologies, drilling on the north slope of Alaska has degraded the tundra, altered wildlife patterns, and has resulted in social problems that blunt claims of unqualified economic progress. Many scientists have said that the oil in the refuge is so relatively minuscule that we would be better off if we simply made our cars more fuel efficient.

Although Connaughton claimed we are ''trying to find" technology, we refuse to use it. The National Academies has for years said the technology exists for more fuel efficient cars. But Congress and the White House, imprisoned by the oil and auto lobby, refuse to raise them.

The vote to drill in Alaska was parallel to another Senate vote to deny an additional $1 billion for Amtrak when studies show that well-developed rail systems can slash traffic and thus global-warming pollution. The United States consumes a quarter of the world's oil and produces a quarter of the planet's greenhouse gases despite being 4 percent of the population. Yet when Brown said that the industrialized countries must take responsibility first, we become the most immature adolescent on Earth, doing precisely the opposite of what we need to do.

Earlier in the month, the former chief scientific adviser to the British government, Lord May of Oxford, bluntly compared Bush to a modern-day Nero. Last fall, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, ''If what the science tells about climate change is correct, then unabated it will result in catastrophic consequences for our world. The science almost certainly is correct."

At the recent London conference, Brown said, ''Environmental issues including climate change have traditionally been placed in a category separate from the economy and from economic policy. But this is no longer tenable. Across a range of environmental issues, from soil erosion to the depletion of marine stocks, from water scarcity to air pollution, it is clear now not just that economic activity is their cause, but that these problems in themselves threaten future economic activity and growth."

Nero and his fiddlers would hear none of that. Asked last month what the science was on global warming, Connaughton said on CNBC, ''There are many different views."

The science ceased to have many views years ago. The very first sentence in the executive summary of the 2001 National Academies of Science report on climate change begins with, ''Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities . . . " The report further said, ''Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century." The science continues to choke under the White House effect.

".....the most immature adolescent on Earth....."

I agree. And there are some excellent examples of that characterization right here in this forum.

It's embarrassing to say the least.

Boomer Chick

03-25-2005, 05:43 PM

I thought about this here article and reread it just now. You know, the funny thing is, Greg Palast never really got around to saying which option, a state-run oil company orprivatization would be better for Iraq. But then again, on a full examination, his whole piece falls flat.

Bush pushed through Iraqi elections despite worldwide calls for them to be put off. The elctions gave the Iraqi people the chance to write their constitution in any way they want, and to deal with the question of whether to privatize their resources or not.

So, in the final analysis, despite all Palast wrote, the point is totally moot. Bush gave complete control of Iraq's oil to the Iraqi's. They can decide to do with it as they wish.

No wonder Palast didn't ever come out and say what will, or even what he thinks should happen to Iraq's oil.

It now belongs to the Iraqi people to do whatever they damn well please!

And the oil isn't Saddam's(or oil-for-food) to plunder as he wishes anymore. How did that happen, anyways................?

The point isn't moot! It shows the predetermined strategy of the neocons regarding their lie to enter into Iraq in the first place based on WMD. Then secondly, the oil was not privatized, obviously, and WHY? Because the Big Oil won the argument with the neocons! That was the point of the article. Everyone could knew before reading it, that the oil had not been privatized, but that is what the neocons originally wanted. This is telling and it is news regarding the neocons and Big Oil, most people assuming that they are one and the same. Not so. It also shows that factions within the administration are not totally in sync.

The purpose was not to show what's going on with Iraqi's oil, it was to reveal HOW the situation worked out behind the scenes and WHY it is the way it is now!!!!

And related to 9/11 and the administration's push to label Saddam an accomplice of 9/11, it shows their predetermined plotting to get ahold of the oil to begin with! This is not a moral way to wage war or use their propaganda to get the American people behind their plans! DUH!

Boomer Chick

03-25-2005, 05:55 PM

Doing some further research, looks like Greg Palast is merely plagiarizing previous work.
Go figure..................................
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0212riftemerges.htm

Wrong! Palast's work regarding the neocon and oil companies rift referred to the timeline before 9/11 and before entering Iraq! There's a big difference between 2003 and 2000-2001-2002 !

Friday Mar 25, 2005
From Palast's site:

Harper's Magazine investigation reveals how Big Oil vanquished the neo-cons - and OPEC is the winner.

"…For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan for Iraq's oil …."

Some conspiracy nuts believe the Bush Administration had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil. In fact, there were TWO plans. In a joint investigation with BBC Television Newsnight, Harper's Magazine has uncovered a hidden battle over Iraq's oil. It began right after Mr. Bush took office - with a previously unreported plot to invade Iraq.

From the exclusive Harper's report by Greg Palast:

Within weeks of the first inaugural, prominent Iraqi expatriates -- many with ties to U.S. industry -- were invited to secret discussions directed by Pamela Quanrud, National Security Council, now at the State Department. "It quickly became an oil group," one participant, Falah Aljibury, told me. Aljibury is an advisor to Amerada Hess' oil trading arm and Goldman Sachs.

"The petroleum industry, the chemical industry, the banking industry -- they'd hoped that Iraq would go for a revolution like in the past and government was shut down for two or three days," Aljibury told me. On this plan, Hussein would simply have been replaced by some former Baathist general.

However, by February 2003, a hundred-page blue-print for the occupied nation, favored by neo-cons, had been enshrined as official policy. "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth" generally embodied the principles for postwar Iraq favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Iran-Contra figure, now Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams. The blue-print mapped out a radical makeover of Iraq as a free-maket Xanadu including, on page 73, the sell-off of the nation's crown jewels: "privatization… [of] the oil and supporting ... [ Click here for full article ]

http://gregpalast.com/

You gotta read to debunk! Does "before the invasion" have any implications to you?

foot_soldier

03-25-2005, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
.....The purpose was not to show what's going on with Iraqis' oil, it was to reveal HOW the situation worked out behind the scenes and WHY it is the way it is now!!!!.....
Exactly.

The Palast piece is in fact a revealing documentation of the process that led to the current state of affairs.

And yes, it's true that "factions within the Bush administration are not totally in sync." Not that this is such a big deal in and of itself. But it is a problem given all that is at stake in a world where unprecedented international cooperation under truly enlightened leadership is so desperately needed at this time.

foot_soldier

03-25-2005, 06:04 PM

Doing some further research, looks like Greg Palast is merely plagiarizing previous work.
Go figure..................................
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0212riftemerges.htm
How long did it take you to grab that link off Google and slap it in here? Did you even read the piece?

Have you ever read Palast's original piece, referenced above by Boomer Chick? Have you ever read anything at all by Greg Palast?

Or do you simply dismiss him as being an "America-hater" for revealing information that isn't in line with Reality As Defined By Jay Reynolds?

Boomer Chick

03-25-2005, 06:07 PM

Exactly.

And yes, it's true that "factions within the Bush administration are not totally in sync." Not that this is such a big deal in and of itself. But it is a problem given all that is at stake in a world where unprecedented international cooperation under truly enlightened leadership is so desperately needed at this time.

Excellent added commentary!

jayreynolds

03-26-2005, 05:43 AM

The biottom-line reality is that the Iraqi people control their own oil.
All the rest is just lame bush-bash, which Palast's previous work displays prominently.
He's one of the pre-eminent sour-grapes lefties, jumping up and down in frustration like a red-faced schoolgirl that didn't get her way when the people decided who they wanted as their leader, both here and in Iraq. Tough luck, you lose. Moveon.

I personally think they would benefit by privatization. Before the war, Wall Street Journal had several editorials discussing that option. The most interesting one to me was the one wherein
each and every Iraqi citizen got equal shares in the oil, to with it as they please. Rather "democratic".

But realistically, how could such a privatization plan have been carried out before an elected government was in place anyways? The whole infrastructure for management of their oil was already set up as a centralized ministry, and has simply continued to do just that. Do you really think a privatization plan could have been implemented already, without a functioning government?

But as I said, it's all just monday-morning quarterbacking now.
If you really dug into the top-secret contingency plans, there was probably also one for the glass-parking-lot option as well. Big deal.

But it's really up to them to decide, and guess who accomplished THAT, even if he may have had other contingency plans, and despite the wishes of some of you, Germany, France, Russia, and all those schoolgilrs still stuck in the past, as new history is being created before their eyes?

BTW, the brou-ha-ha about contingency plans also falls flat regarding Bush. My sister and my Iraqi-born brother-in-law were making contingency plans for their environmental restoration work in Iraq before the turn of the century.

I suppose they were in on the secret conspiracy plans, too.
Some 'secret'.
One 'secret' Clinton made public. One 'secret' openly debated and decided by YOUR representatives-
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Boomer Chick

03-26-2005, 04:49 PM

If you had read the article, Jay, you would have known that the ultimate reason for privatization was to destablize OPEC. The oil companies did not want that. What would destabilizing OPEC mean to the rest of the world? To the international and national oil companies? Cartels? The other lesson the oil companies mentioned was the privatization oil scheme in Russia which backfired on the Russians, but I don't know the details of that.

There are no bottom lines here. Palast's expose was not to inform us about oil or Iraq now, it was to reveal the mechinations of our administration.... which should inflame any American who cares about our world reputation, our government as an entity that values true democratic ideals and at least maintains a modicum of foreign policy integrity. This administration has failed on most accounts regarding honesty and preemptive policy. Never in our history has our government so blatantly lied to mislead the American people than this entrance into the Iraq occupation. It's obvious to all who have been reading and following the Iraq story and 9/11, that oil was the bottom line for all of those who lost their lives, limbs, and the innocent Iraqis who lost same and whose country's infrastructure was destroyed only to be rebuilt by American corporations. We won't even mention the torture past and that is ongoing and the various prisons still operating, incarcerating Iraqis, not foreign nationals. Was it worth it?

One could list the costs economically, socially, politically, and globally/politically and come to the conclusion that it was NOT worth the cost in human and economic terms. Follow the money and see what a small faction of entities benefitted from this most ghastly departure from American foreign policy. It's a disgrace and yes, we're there and need to stay there now, but all is not hunky dory in Iraq by a long shot. Many, many want the troops to come home and I'm one of them. As soon as possible! It is America's presence that fuels the insurgents and now that Iraq is organizing, they have ever right to demand that most troops leave and request that other countries come in to help stabilize.

Great place for Iraq and Afghanitstan information:

http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Propaganda strikes deep, into your life it will creep, it starts when you're always afraid, step out of line and the ............................ will take you away! WAKE UP !!!!

"Not only did he completely miscalculate the number of troops required to pursue his ideologically-motivated mission—but now we learn that he rushed America into the hell of war without preparing for the medical needs of thousands of soldiers who are coming home with severe wounds."
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/21549/

Army experiments with raising maximum age for Reserve recruits :

Dubbed a three-year “test,” the new policy will bump up the maximum age for new enlistments from 34 years to 39 years, according to an Army announcement.
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27871

Norman Solomon: MoveOn.org: Making Peace With the War in Iraq

"Sadly, it has come to this. Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the online powerhouse MoveOn.org -- leadership has decided against opposing the American occupation of Iraq."
http://tinyurl.com/55w7m

U.S. Policy OKs First Strike:

Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States. [HELLO? IRAQ WAS NOT A THREAT!!! I wonder what their definition will be regarding the term, "THREAT?" ]
http://tinyurl.com/59jt9

Worldwide protests mark Iraq war :

Protests have been taking place across the world marking two years since the start of the war in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4364305.stm

US protesters hold anti-Iraq war demonstrations :

The American crowds ranged from 350 in Times Square in New Yorkto several thousands in San Francisco.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/21/content_2722078.htm

In pictures: Iraq protests
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4364573.stm

Treason on Downing Street:

About this time last year, Britain's Channel 4 News broadcast the results of an opinion survey which indicated that nine in ten Britons recognised Prime Minister Blair as a liar and a fraud. Given the revelations since then it would be mighty surprising if the public's opinion of his character has improved. He is probably the most universally despised PM in living memory.
http://www.counterpunch.com/hastings03192005.html

Juan Cole : The Democracy Lie:

President Bush and his supporters are taking credit for spreading freedom across the Middle East. Middle East expert Cole disputes the domino theory in the region and labels Iraq—at best—a failed state. Where changes are genuinely occurring they have nothing to do with the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_democracy_lie.php

"Like the effect of advertising upon the customer, the methods of political propaganda tend to increase the feeling of insignificance of the individual voter:" Erich Fromm, psychoanalyst and social philosopher, 1900-1980

Boomer Chick

03-26-2005, 06:03 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7294358/

WMD report expected to blastU.S. agencies

McCain says recommendations needed to avoid repeat

The Associated Press
March 25 , 2005

Boomer Chick

03-26-2005, 06:19 PM

Back to the subject! Climate change and global warming or cooling!

Something good found in a greenhouse gas/particulate!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050323133619.htm

Most read story on the internet? Ocean, temps, and global warming!

EXCELLENT SITE!!! Sorry if this is a repeat! Worth repeating anyway!!! A keeper!

http://www.realclimate.org/

commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
If you would like to contact us, suggest a topic to be covered, contribute a relevant commentary, or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis, please email RealClimate (replace -at- with @).

OK!!!

Read the forum with questions and answers! A fantastic site!

:D

jayreynolds

03-27-2005, 05:56 AM

Greg Palast broke the story on the neocons verses the big oil in the battle over Iraq oil .... and BTW, the plans for the oil and the invasion were in the hopper long before 9/11 !

The document Palast claims to have for privatization was created one month before the invasion, NOT pre-9/11!

However, I have shown that the CLINTON administration made the original plans, based on the Iraq Liberation Act written by CONGRESS. Appropriations and plans were made beginnning in 1998!

As for when plans for privatizing Iraq's oil were made, here is the quote:

GREG PALAST: At the heart of the “smash OPEC” scheme was a radical plan, which we discovered in this document, completed a month before the invasion for the privatization of all Iraq's assets,, especially in the oil and supporting industries.

So, the privatization plan was made WHEN????[
The invasion began March 20th, 2003, a month before would make the document's creation February, 2003.

So, the plan, pre-9/11, which I have shown had existed prior to the Bush administration, as authorized by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, was to continue the Iraqi national oil company, yet the "document" Palast refers to was created a month before the invasion"

Here it is, acording to Palast:

"GREG PALAST: In other words, just topple Saddam. Most Baathists would stay in power. As for the oil fields, the state would keep ownership.

So, the article says that pre-9-11, the plan was NOT privatization, the plan was continued nationalization. One month before the invasion, however, the document Palast refers to contained plans for privatization.

Philip Carrol says:

"There were models everywhere from the total privatization to partial privatization, etc., etc. There were all sorts of ideas floated about the economy of Iraq and what ought to be done. I was very clear that there was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved. End of statement."

Now, what else could an oilman say, yes, I'm for forcing the Iraqis to do ANYTHING with their oil?
No, he could not have made such a decision, in reality it could never have been done anyway without repercussions, and indeed never was done. HE couldn'y go along with it, and nether would you, if you were to have been asked.

Amy Jaffe brings the situation into reality, there was no way that privatization could have, or indeed should have, been forced on the Iraqi people at gunpoint, it is up to them to decide, and that is that!

"AMY JAFFE: The bottom line is, we were very concerned about the perceptions that somehow we were doing this to steal the oil. You cannot use military means to impose privatization. It has to come from the society below; that has to be what the country wants to do. We were very concerned that there were going to be images on Al Jazeera TV, or in Western media that was very to the left, showing the Americans standing with military uniforms on in the oil fields.

No one, not Paul Wolfowitz or indeed even Greg Palast, can argue that privatization could have been forced. The original plan, drafted pre-9/11 and a continuation of planning begun in 1998, which was the only practicable one, won out in the end.

The reason why Palast doesn't tell you which plan he would have preferred is because there is NO WAY he, or anyone else, could have supported the US forcing privatization on the Iraqi people under occupation.

Palast, in this article, is really doing his best to create an impression of discord inside the Bush administration, which is fine with me. I'm glad that things are open enough that people can have independent thought, so that the best plans can be worked out. It's rather silly to buy into his claim that a World Bank appointment is a demotion, BTW. Who among you really thinks that Wolfowitz can't exert tremendous influence as diector of the World bank? Not long after he is installed, I expect an article by Greg Palast excoriating him for exerting his bombastic 'neo-con' on the entire world!

So, it's just spin that has some conspiracy of BIG OIL scheming to steal Iraq's oil. Iraq's oil belonged to the Iraqis, it had to remain with the Iraqis, and it is now in the hands of the Iraqis, which was the right thing to do. There really was nothing BIG OIL or anyone else could have, or should have done anyways. This is really a case of all parties involved being 'overtaken by events' completely beyond their control, not some conspiracy theory.

Boomer Chick

03-27-2005, 09:44 PM

SECRET U.S. PLANS FOR IRAQ'S OIL
BBC News World Edition
Thursday, March 17, 2005
By Greg Palast

http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=417

Reporting for BBC Newsnight (London)

Why was Paul Wolfowitz pushed out of the Pentagon onto the World Bank? The answer lies in a 323-page document, secret until now, indicating that the allies of Big Oil in the Bush Administration have defeated neo-conservatives and their chief Wolfowitz. BBC Television Newsnight tells the true story of the fall of the neo-cons. An investigation conducted by BBC with Harper's magazine will also reveal that the US State Department made detailed plans for war in Iraq -- and for Iraq's oil -- within weeks of Bush's first inauguration in 2001.

********************
Watch the Broadcast of this report
********************

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

View Segments of Iraq oil plans

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by yet another secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight, at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, your losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable," said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatization is coming."

Privatization blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry.

Ari Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields. He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

View segments of Iraq oil plans

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatization. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Jaffe said "There is no question that an American oil company ... would not be enthusiastic about a plan that would privatize all the assets with Iraq companies and they (US companies) might be left out of the transaction."

In addition, Ms. Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec, "They [oil companies] have to worry about the price of oil."

"I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight, "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this that and the other. International oil companies without exception are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.

You can watch the program online from Democracy Now!

Read the story in greater detail in the April issue of Harper's magazine - out Tuesday at your local newsstand.

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." View his writings at www.GregPalast.com.

Leni von Eckardt contributed investigative research for this project.

For interviews, email us at contact(at)GregPalast.com

***

What's not to understand here?

foot_soldier

03-27-2005, 09:53 PM

.....Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatization. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves......
Bingo.

( DUH )

Boomer Chick

03-27-2005, 10:07 PM

http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=419

TONY BLAIR: The action has nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward.

GREG PALAST: Some people believe George Bush had a secret plan for Iraq's oil. It's not that simple. In fact, we found two plans. While there was a hot war being fought in Iraq, here in Washington, there was a cold war being fought. On one side, the Pentagon and its neo-con friends, and on the other, the State Department and its allies in big oil.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: So help me God.

GREG PALAST: January 2001, George Bush waltzes into office on a gusher of oil money, swearing that the U.S. has no plans to remake any nation. Yet at the same time, on the other side of the U.S.A., a secret meeting was in the works to plan for the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam and to decide what to do with Iraq's oil. Across the bridge from San Francisco, the State Department convened the meeting in this house, a bit of Baghdad in America. Falah Aljibury is an Iraqi exile who acted as Ronald Reagan's back channel to Saddam's regime. He hosted those early war councils for the Bush team.

FALAH ALJIBURY: It is an invasion, but it will act like a coup. The original plan was to liberate Iraq from the Saddamists and from the regime, to stabilize the country. A leader, an Iraqi leader known for his decency and ability to work with the allied forces, will step forward.

GREG PALAST: Aljibury, a key link between big oil, big finance and OPEC, interviewed the candidates for a strongman to replace Saddam in advance of the invasion.

FALAH ALJIBURY: This transitional leader that we have interviewed before will come in, head all of the government systems, and quickly bring the people back to work.

GREG PALAST: In other words, just topple Saddam. Most Baathists would stay in power. As for the oil fields, the state would keep ownership. But after September 11, Washington's power center shifted to the right. Paul Wolfowitz and his neo-cons were now in charge. News Night learned they junked plan A, the quick coup. The neo-cons wanted to use the invasion of Iraq to end the Arab stranglehold on oil. They aimed to bring down the criminal OPEC monopoly.

ARI COHEN: OPEC is a cartel. As a cartel, it regulates the output and it tries to get the price as high as possible for its members without destroying the goose that is laying the golden eggs. So, OPEC, the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries, would behave in a way that, at least in this country (in the United States), would be prosecutable.

GREG PALAST: At the heart of the “smash OPEC” scheme was a radical plan, which we discovered in this document, completed a month before the invasion, for the privatization of all Iraq's assets, especially in the oil and supporting industries. [Notice the word "completed!" ]

ARI COHEN: By having massive oil holdings in private hands that are not marching to the drumbeat of OPEC, you weaken OPEC politically and you improve the lot of a consumer and of western economy, in general.

GREG PALAST: Chatter about the sell-off plan boosted accusations that the invasion was aimed at seizing Iraq's oil.

ROBERT EBEL: The thought was, “Why are you going into Iraq? It's about oil, isn't it?” And my response was, “No, it’s about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. The morning after, it's about oil.”

GREG PALAST: In the run-up to war, the administration sent Ebel to meet with Ahmed Chalabi, America's front man to take over Iraq. Chalabi embraced the sell-off of Iraq's oil.

ROBERT EBEL: These people had been out of Iraq for some time. Chalabi was the senior person. They felt that was the way to quick growth, to privatize, to get, you know, lots of companies in, get them spending money to develop production.

GREG PALAST: Resistance to the plan to sell off Iraq's oil bubbled up from a most unlikely source: U.S. oil chieftains. Former Shell C.E.O. Philip Carroll was called up long before the tanks rolled.

PHILIP CARROLL: I received a call from someone in the Pentagon saying that they were doing some contingency planning in association with the possibility of war in Iraq. They needed some help and assistance from someone who had spent time in that industry.

GREG PALAST: But the oil man refused to carry out the neo-con plan.

PHILIP CARROLL: There were models everywhere from the total privatization to partial privatization, etc., etc. There were all sorts of ideas floated about the economy of Iraq and what ought to be done. I was very clear that there was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved. End of statement.

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with the report of investigative reporter Greg Palast.

GREG PALAST: Even some of those who plotted Saddam's overthrow complained that privatization plans added fuel to the insurgency, costing American, British, and Iraqi lives.

FALAH ALJIBURY: Insurgents and those who wanted to destabilize a new Iraq have used this as means of saying, “Look, you're losing your country. You’re losing your leadership. You're losing all of your resources to a bunch of wealthy people. A bunch of billionaires in the world want to take you over and make your life miserable.” And we saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, of course, built on -- built on the premise that privatization is coming.

GREG PALAST: So, how is the State Department going to douse the flames? Here in Houston, the oil capital of America, the industry wasn't too happy about what was going on. “News Night" discovered that big oil chieftains in Iraq demanded a new policy. The job fell to the Texas think tank, founded by Jim Baker, one-time secretary of State, whose law firm now represents George W. Bush, the government of Saudi Arabia, and Exxon Oil.

AMY JAFFE: The bottom line is, we were very concerned about the perceptions that somehow we were doing this to steal the oil. You cannot use military means to impose privatization. It has to come from the society below; that has to be what the country wants to do. We were very concerned that there were going to be images on Al Jazeera TV, or in Western media that was very to the left, showing the Americans standing with military uniforms on in the oil fields.

GREG PALAST: The State Department reluctantly handed us the plan, confidential until now, drafted by Jaffe. There are seven options given to Iraq's future governments, not a single one privatization. The neo-con scheme was dead because taking on OPEC and forcing down the price of petroleum did not suit big oil.

AMY JAFFE: I'm not sure that if I were the chairman of an American company and you put me on a lie detector test that I would say that I thought high oil prices were bad for me or my company.

GREG PALAST: So I asked Shell's former boss if the neo-con's agenda matched that of the oil industry.

Boomer Chick

03-27-2005, 10:08 PM

PHILIP CARROLL: They're absolutely poles apart. Many neo-conservatives are people who do have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic, commercial organizations. They don't have a theology. They don't have a doctrine. They are going to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders.

GREG PALAST: Americans have never paid so much for gasoline. Big oil execs are grinning. They've never seen such big profits. The neo-cons say we missed the chance to stop this run-up in oil prices. All we had to do was sell off Iraq's oil fields. But big oil killed it.

PHILIP CARROLL: The question, both politically and economically, would be so complex and so difficult that I don't think anyone really serious would think about trying to privatize it.

FALAH ALJIBURY: In that case, let's go and nationalize Shell, to follow his logic. I think that in the late 20th century, early 21st century, to compare government-run industries with privately run industries, it's a no-brainer, as we say. The comparison is in favor of privately owned oil, privately owned assets.

PHILIP CARROLL: I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about someone -- by someone with no brain.

GREG PALAST: Headless or heartless, America has given Iraq a state-controlled oil monopoly, big oil and OPEC will have their $56-a-barrel oil, and Wolfowitz and the neo-cons are looking for new jobs.

AMY GOODMAN: That report by investigative journalist Greg Palast, who joins us now in our studio before we move on to protests around the country. Welcome, Greg Palast.

GREG PALAST: Glad to be here, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: An explosive report on these two plans. And tie them in now to the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank.

GREG PALAST: Well, only in weird Bush world is nomination to the presidency of the World Bank considered a punishment job. Basically Wolfowitz is being tossed out head first out of the Pentagon because he decided to take on one enemy too big for his own teeth, which is big oil. And, see, the main spoils of the war in Iraq is a seat on OPEC. It's not just the fields; it is a seat on OPEC. What do we do with that seat? The neo-cons wanted to use our control of Iraq's oil to smash OPEC, to smash the power of what they see as an Arab-controlled monopoly and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, that also meant smashing $56-a-barrel oil prices, and the oil industry was deeply unhappy. So, there was a neo-con plan put out. In fact, you broke the report here two years ago when we were on the air saying that there was a plan to privatize and sell off all of Iraq's oil fields. There was. Then Phil Carroll of Shell Oil was assigned by George Bush to baby-sit the situation in Iraq. The oil man went in and said there ain't going to be no privatization on my watch. We don't work that way. You have to understand, oil companies, when they privatize, the big oil companies never get it, it’s always the cronies of Chalabi and who’s ever in power in any country. So, the oil companies did not want to be locked out, so they weren't going to go along with it. Plus, they didn't like the neo-con idea that if there was privatization, and production would be ramped up, OPEC would be destroyed, oil prices would fall apart, and that would be the end of record profits for the oil companies. So, a new report was secretly ordered up by a guy named Rob McKee, who took the Shell man's place. McKee is from ConocoPhillips, paid $25 million by Conoco in his last year there, assigned by Bush to Iraq to the oil ministry there. And he ordered up a new study which was done by the Jim Baker Institute. Now Jim Baker represents Exxon and the Saudi government. And the Baker Institute people, and the people they worked with, came up with a report that said that there would be a state-controlled company, which would be very OPEC-friendly, very oil company-friendly and would establish profit sharing agreements with international oil companies. And that was their recommendation. Privatization was dead out, and they were just livid about Wolfowitz. The woman who is the chief guider on that project said, you know, here's Wolfowitz talking about democracy, yet he wants to do what 99% of Iraqis don't want. The oil companies don't want to own oil fields in flames. So, basically Wolfowitz came up against big oil and his cronies, Doug Fife and the others. So, their privatization plans, because they kept pushing them, just absolutely killed them off. And we also got, of course, a story that you saw at the beginning, that at the very beginning of the war, in fact, even before Bush was inaugurated, but within a couple of weeks, there was a meeting of oil industry people, associated with Iraq, planning the overthrow of Saddam. An invasion which would look like a coup d'etat. We would actually send in the 82nd Airborne and replace Saddam, just give a new dictator his mustache, the Baathists would stay in power, nothing would change. It was in and out. I think people got the wrong impression with Bob Woodward's book: Colin Powell did not oppose the invasion of Iraq. They were planning this from, like I say, the second week in office. Powell and the State Department people were opposing a long occupation and a remaking of Iraq. They just wanted to get rid of the top guy. They were quite happy with the Baathists, and they wanted to keep the oil flowing, and they didn't want this type of situation we have now with a bloody, brutal occupation, which is also, you know, jamming up the oil fields and creating a major problem. So that, again, it is the State department simply had a different plan for invasion than the neo-cons. But after September 11, the neo-cons kind of seized control of policy. Now we've had a new kind of policy coup d'etat by big oil and the -- and OPEC allies in the government. They're in charge now.

AMY GOODMAN: It's also hard to believe that John Bolton becoming U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is any kind of step down.

GREG PALAST: For them, you know, it is pushing the Bush policy. But you have to understand that the real levers of power are not in these public jawboning jobs. The real levers of power are behind those closed walls. So Wolfowitz had his power. He now has to take his hands off the levers, and Bolton is now in a position where he is told what to say, and he is not a person setting policy. The neo-cons understand what's happening here, and they are screaming bloody murder. But they’re all being purged. This is a very big change in U.S. policy toward people like Negroponte, who are State Department establishment, oil-friendly, OPEC-friendly, Saudi-friendly.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, on that note, I want to thank you very much for being with us. The investigation, a joint BBC-Harper’s magazine investigation. Greg Palast’s latest piece out today in Harper's magazine, called "OPEC on the March: Why Iraq Still Sells Its Oil a la Cartel." Thank you, Greg.

GREG PALAST: You're welcome.

***

Jay, you can have any opinion you want on big oil having their way, but the news here was the planning by the neocons before 9/11 regarding taking over Iraq and its oil fields and the plans were many and underway. The final draft was, of course, right before the invasion. I do agree with Palast that policy making behind closed doors is far more powerful than the head of the WB or ambassadorial offices. It was step down in power for Wolfie and Bolton, but you can agree or disagree with that if you want. The story was still a revealing and very important one and not one of conspiracy theory. Sorry. It was the work of an investigative reporter who did his job quite well.

jayreynolds

03-28-2005, 05:52 AM

Boomer Chick

03-28-2005, 10:02 AM

Riddle me this, boomerchick, if you had to make a decision to deal with a post-saddam Iraq, as specified by the Iraq Liberation Act written in 1998 by the congressional representatives of the people, and which called for and appropriated money for the executive branch to plan for regime change "pre-9/11", under President Clinton, would you have chosen any differently than what ultimately took place?

You wouldn't have forced privatization or any other option on the Iraqi people, would you?

You would not have ordered any change whatsoever, would you?

You would have left the oil nationalized, wouldn't you?

C'mon, be honest and answer the question.

The bottom line is that what transpired was the right thing to do, regardless of who it benefits. The final beneficiary was really the Iraqi people, who were set free of a tyrant who watched them starving while he squandered their patrimony building palaces and secreting semi-truckloads of dollars. They were given the freedom to chart their own destiny by an administration which had the balls to go their own way and do the right thing.

All the rest is silly red-faced schoolgirl spin , in the final analysis.

Contrast this with:

Jay, you can have any opinion you want on big oil having their way, but the news here was the planning by the neocons before 9/11 regarding taking over Iraq and its oil fields and the plans were many and underway. The final draft was, of course, right before the invasion. I do agree with Palast that policy making behind closed doors is far more powerful than the head of the WB or ambassadorial offices. It was step down in power for Wolfie and Bolton, but you can agree or disagree with that if you want. The story was still a revealing and very important one and not one of conspiracy theory. Sorry. It was the work of an investigative reporter who did his job quite well.

Is there spin? Or just facts? I'm not personally arguing anything regarding the outcome. The BIG NEWS here was the planning for oil takeover BEFORE the 9/11 and after by two factions, the neocons and the big oil. What is so hard to realize from this? This is NOT spin. Changing the discussion to who was right regarding the Iraqi people was not the reason for Palast's article. It was to show that the neoconservatives AND big oil have ties and were in conflict, planned the invasion long before 9/11, lied in regard to WMD, and because the neocons' plan for privatization was not acceptable to big oil companies, nationalized Iraqi oil was preserved. It's not the end result that is the BIG NEWS on this at all. It's the realization of what really fuels our national foreign policy -- resource usurpation and warlike efforts to create this resource stability. This is immoral and wrong by both the big oil and the neocons! It is wrong covertly and it's wrong overtly! Considering the previous plans involved replacing Saddam and keeping the Baathists in power, shows the hypocrisy in caring about the Iraqi people and their DEMOCRACY!!! Big oil made the decision based on their own profit margin, not the Iraqi people. Destabilizing OPEC (privatization) was not in their profit-making interests. So it wasn't for the benefit of the Iraqi people at all. If the end result benefits the Iraqi people, than fine. But that wasn't the news! Is this so hard to grasp?

And it is not spinning and I am not "red-faced" and calling me a "schoolgirl" is a personal attack of a benign nature and not condusive to academic discussion or debate.

jayreynolds

03-28-2005, 07:27 PM

Is there spin? .

I see you weren't able to answer my question honestly about how you might have decided had you been put in the same position as the Bush administration. Just like Palast did, you dodged the bottom line and could only provide more spin.

OK, let's dissect it.

BC-"The BIG NEWS here was the planning for oil takeover BEFORE the 9/11 and after by two factions, the neocons and the big oil."

Status- spinning out of control.
Plans for regime change were initiated in 1998 under the Clinton administration, commencing after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act. What Bush did was merely to continue to execute the law our congress sent up to the White House years before. Besides, no oil was ever really "taken over", except during the time of the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Iraqi Ministry of oil regained full control even before the government regained soveriegnty last summer.

BC-"It was to show that the neoconservatives AND big oil have ties and were in conflict, planned the invasion long before 9/11, lied in regard to WMD, and because the neocons' plan for privatization was not acceptable to big oil companies, nationalized Iraqi oil was preserved."

Status- laundry list.
People have "ties", yet disagree? Wouldn't that seem to show a lesser conspiracy rather than a greater one? Frankly, I'm happy they are free to disagree, it tends to avoid 'groupthink', one of the major faults among large organizations which leads to shortsightedness. Planned the invasion before 9/11? That was debunked long ago. Of course Bill Clinton began the plans back in 1998! "Lied regarding WMD"?, Palast doesn't mention WMD's does he? The neocon's plan wasn't even viable considering a functional Iraqi government was formed too quickly to even consider accomplishing such a thing as privatization. That decision was left up to the Iraqis.

BC- "It's not the end result that is the BIG NEWS on this at all. It's the realization of what really fuels our national foreign policy -- resource usurpation and warlike efforts to create this resource stability. This is immoral and wrong by both the big oil and the neocons! It is wrong covertly and it's wrong overtly!"

Status- Much ado about nothing.
Of course, Palast never began to prove the war was fueled by "resource usurpation". Saddam sold his oil on the open market through the Iraqi Oil Ministry just like the Iraqi people do now!
No such resource usurpation has taken place.

If the whole war was about oil, it was indeed a complete failure, wasn't it, BC?

All that effort by Bush to invade Iraq, only to quickly hand over sovereignty and get a national election pushed through despite worldwide advice to wait, that elections could NEVER work????

All this war just to hand over all the oil as quickly as possible?
Is this the basis of your whole belief system?
Can you really spin these facts into a conspiracy tale about how the war was all about oil?????
Doesn't the whole idea seem preposterous, that an invasion was held just to give away the oil??

Or isn't it all just a big failure of your whole idea, all of it down the drain in the end, as you can't even begin to argue against the fact that the Iraqis now truly, for the first time ever, really own their own oil, and not some two-bit dictator?

See how easily your whole Bush-is-stealing-Iraq's-oil worldview falls apart? History has been made before your very eyes, and you haven't even begun to deal with the past!

Boomer Chick

03-28-2005, 07:35 PM

Action urged on global warming --- Britain

Published: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:35:00 GMT+01

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200503/23dbcccc-96e9-4ce4-aa98-23c7aab80d2b.htm

More action is needed to tackle climate change, a committee of MPs has warned.

The Commons environmental audit committee has criticised government suggestions that new technology and market mechanisms will reduce carbon dioxide emissions

And the European emissions trading scheme also comes under attack in a report published on Sunday.

Britain and the developed world should be seeking to reduce emissions by 60 to 80 per cent by 2050, say the MPs.

"The government chief scientists and Tony Blair have both said that climate change is one of the most serious problems facing mankind, and Tony Blair has rightly put it at the head of his international agenda," chairman Peter Ainsworth told BBC Radio Five Live

"The trouble is that the rhetoric isn't translating into action."

He said that Britain should "set out a list of achievable goals for the world community".

And both America and the developing world should be involved, Ainsworth added.

"The time for talking about this problem is drawing to an end, what we really do need now is a programme for action, and that's what we're trying to impress on the government through this report."

Sue Doughty, a Liberal Democrat committee member, said it was a "damning" report for the government.

"The government stands accused of wilful evasion on climate change. Let's have no more wilful evasion in their response; let's have serious action," she said.

"We need cross party agreement that there is a bottom line on climate change and that whatever government is in place after the election this issue will be at the top of the political agenda.

"The adoption of 'contraction and convergence' is essential if international efforts to combat climate change are to be successful.

"Both politicians and journalists now have a responsibility to ensure the public become familiar with the idea of contraction and convergence and understand why it is vital to preventing a global ecological disaster that would wreck our economy and security."

***

Contraction and Convergence? Let's see if I can find something on that!

***
Kennedy: Europe must lead the world on environmental agenda

Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, today challenged Tony Blair at Prime Minister's Questions, on the need to tackle pollution by putting Europe at the heart of future policy making. And he asked the Prime Minister whether he would press 'the principle of contraction and convergence as the fairest way forward for controlling greenhouse gas emissions?'.

Mr Kennedy then asked the Prime Minister, given that a growing proportion of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions comes from air travel, would 'he lead a real push at European level to apply the principle that the polluter must pay the aviation industry?'.

Text of exchange follows:

Rt. Hon. Charles Kennedy MP: Mr Speaker, in the House on Monday the Prime Minister acknowledged that he has little expectation that this United States Government is going to sign up to the Kyoto Treaty in terms of climate change. Would he agree that this further emphasises the need, therefore, for Europe to be seen to be taking a lead? Will he commit the Government to join with France, with Sweden, with Holland, with Denmark in pressing the principle of contraction and convergence as the fairest way forward for controlling greenhouse gas emissions?

The Prime Minister: We already are working very strongly with the European Union in order to make the case for the reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions - indeed this Government has been leading the way. In fact the Kyoto Treaty in many ways would not have been negotiated but for the negotiating skill of my Right Honourable Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was present at that negotiation. But I have to say to the Right Honourable Gentleman that in the end what is important, as well as those measures that he has mentioned is, I believe, the investment in science and technology and energy efficiency which give us the best chance in the long term of combining economic growth and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Rt. Hon. Charles Kennedy MP: Mr Speaker I think that the Prime Minister's positive tone is very welcome indeed. Now on a practical example to push this green agenda forward: when such a large and, indeed, growing proportion of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions comes from air travel, will he lead a real push at European level to apply the principle that the polluter must pay the aviation industry. And would the Prime Minister agree that the environmental agenda is surely a classic example of where Europe can lead in the world, and Britain can be seen to be taking a real lead in Europe?

The Prime Minister: I think that may be a classical example of advocating a policy you don't believe you'll ever have to implement. But if I can say to him very sincerely, yes I do believe it is important we take on the challenge of aviation fuel. Yes I do believe it's important. But I believe the best way of doing that is the investment in science and technology to produce better fuel efficiency and that is something that is happening in this country. And actually to be fair some of the main research is going on in the United States at the present time. But I would not [interference] to myself trying to impose arbitrary restrictions on peoples' travel.

***

Hmmm, seems as though Blair is stalling a bit as far as actually getting something done. Sound familiar? "Contraction and convergence" seems a fancy term for obtaining agreeable contracts with emission producing entities to reduce emissions, and "convergence" may refer to international cooperation in action. Any thoughts? Couldn't find a definition.

Boomer Chick

03-28-2005, 07:52 PM

Drought to persist in North America due to La Nina:

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story02-08-05.html

Boomer Chick

03-28-2005, 08:01 PM

Great pics from around the world revealing global warming, climate change, and sea level rises!

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/

jayreynolds

03-29-2005, 05:38 AM

Drought to persist in North America due to La Nina:

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story02-08-05.html

Sorry, but this link has become 'overtaken by events'. Over the past two years, many historic droughts have been broken completely, and much of the nation is in the clear. Ed will tell you how nice it was for West Texas, which was in the grip of aten-year drought. Both Texas and California have been almost completely taken off the drought monitor, and it says this about the southwest:

"Re-assessment of the situation in southwestern Arizona shows most of the western half of the state in a surplus mode out to 36 months in many cases, leading to a slight pushing of the D0 eastward in southern Arizona toward Tucson. Precipitation amounts in most of the Southwest and southern California are running 200-300% of normal for the both the year-to-date and water year (since October 1, 2004) time frames.
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

According to the El Nino trackers at NOAA:

"Based on the recent evolution of SST anomalies and on a majority of the statistical and coupled model forecasts, it seems most likely that weak warm episode (El Niño) conditions will continue to weaken during the next three months and that ENSO-neutral conditions will prevail during the northern summer.

If La Nina holds off for the summer, I expect my own problem will be too much water. I was unable to do any soil work from November till February. I'm ready like never before, however. Today I will install a new irrigation pump and receive 1300 ft of new 2" irrigation pipe. Yahoo!

Boomer Chick

03-29-2005, 08:28 AM

Sorry, but this link has become 'overtaken by events'. Over the past two years, many historic droughts have been broken completely, and much of the nation is in the clear. Ed will tell you how nice it was for West Texas, which was in the grip of aten-year drought. Both Texas and California have been almost completely taken off the drought monitor, and it says this about the southwest:

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

Well, that's good information, but nonetheless, the drought in the southwest, as this article does indeed portray correctly, is still in effect. The article was written in Feb. 2005 (last month), by a quite well-respected earth science community, Columbia University. Why do you dispute what the article says? It's a fact. I live here in Colorado and yes, we have had enough snow this past year to bring up the resevoirs, but New Mexico, Arizona, Utah .... which are part of the Southwest and the plains of Colorado into Kansas are still included in this 3 year prediction regarding La Nina "like" conditions. For the last four years we've only had one moist Spring, the snowfall has been much lower in the winter, and the rainfall in the summer from summer storms has slacked off. We've lived here over 28 years, and from observation I can tell you that it has indeed dried up. We used to get mushrooms every year in the forest, in the late summer and early fall, but only one year in the last five we've had them. Our culverts and ponds used to be full of frogs every summer, chirping in the night, but not for five years now.

Texas and your state are not part of this prediction regarding the persistent drought. Yes, there was a dumping of rain in Southern California, but it was largely coastal as well. The agricultural area is mainly in the central valley of the state.... my home state... know it quite well.

According to the El Nino trackers at NOAA:

If La Nina holds off for the summer, I expect my own problem will be too much water. I was unable to do any soil work from November till February. I'm ready like never before, however. Today I will install a new irrigation pump and receive 1300 ft of new 2" irrigation pipe. Yahoo!

I wish you a great growing season, Jay! A new irrigation pump, eh? Nice! Maybe you won't need it? Today is one of a handful of glorious warmer days. Last night the temps were balmy and most of the snow on the ground has melted. Usual planting at this altitude is recommended due to freezes and frosts for mid-May. Shouldn't you be planting pretty soon? In California I recall peas, lettuce, carrots could be sown in March, tomato seedlings in April ... well just about all seeds could be sown in March there. I miss the climate and the soil in Santa Clara Valley and even up in Northern California. We have to import our soil here, as it's basically sand with pockets of peat here and there. Because we have the most sunny days of just about any state, we're certainly well positioned for solar energy as well as green houses. We might just build that greenhouse this summer. Happy Spring!

Boomer Chick

03-29-2005, 08:53 AM

Jay, I visited the sites you suggested and yes, there is a change in the precip. outlook for the Southwest as the Northwest continues in a drought situation. However, we're still not caught up in the resevoirs and we need a few more years of precip. to get those back to normal and trustworthy. I hope the trend of increased moisture continues in the Southwest . We need it badly. Denver and all along the front range for several years now, had to ration water.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.html#TEXT

Latest Seasonal Assessment - Drought has rapidly worsened across the Northwest from Washington and Oregon eastward to Montana, as mountain snowpacks have dropped to record or near-record lows across the region. Although forecasts for the last half of March show a promising tendency for increased precipitation, especially in western parts of Washington and Oregon, it is very unlikely that the Northwest will see significant improvement in the hydrological drought picture this late in the wet season, given the difficulty of making up the deficits following four consecutive months of below-normal precipitation. Spring-summer water supply outlooks made in early March would place this year's flows among the bottom one or two of the last 70 years in the Pacific Northwest. Storms have continued to ease drought across the Southwest and Great Basin, and the latest seasonal drought outlook calls for additional improvement for lingering drought areas. Melt from the extraordinary mountain snowpack in this region will boost streamflows this spring, improving reservoir supplies. Although even the larger reservoirs will benefit from this past winter's prolific snows, one season will not be enough to bring full recovery to the largest reservoirs, such as Mead and Powell on the Colorado River. In the northern High Plains, including the upper Missouri River basin, below-normal mountain snowpacks will mean that hydrological drought will be ongoing, although late winter storms and spring rains should offer limited improvement by benefiting soil moisture. In the South, spotty dry areas resulting from below-normal rainfall since October are not expected to develop into large-scale drought. Dryness that has recently developed in Puerto Rico will likely grow somewhat worse in coming weeks. The onset of the normal seasonal rains that begin in April-May will have a significant impact on whether dry conditions intensify. Forecast models for April-June suggest the dryness will not persist.

Good news, but we need it to last! ;)

Boomer Chick

03-29-2005, 11:36 AM

I see you weren't able to answer my question honestly about how you might have decided had you been put in the same position as the Bush administration. Just like Palast did, you dodged the bottom line and could only provide more spin.

First of all, responding to the wording and assumptions therein regarding your wording, Bush was not "put" in any position. He and his cabinet decided on their course of action. To say that they were "put" is to allude to some kind of forced situation. There were choices. I avoided your question not out of dishonesty as you allude, but because of your question's false nature.

Jay's original question:

if you had to make a decision to deal with a post-saddam Iraq, as specified by the Iraq Liberation Act written in 1998 by the congressional representatives of the people, and which called for and appropriated money for the executive branch to plan for regime change "pre-9/11", under President Clinton, would you have chosen any differently than what ultimately took place?

Within this question is the assumed truth of President Clinton's involvement in this. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 has not been established as a legitmate document in my awareness. I will research that right now. Now that I read it, it is quite a noble statement with which I do personally agree. There is no mention of warlike occupation whatsoever, however, and in fact the document, which was a statement regarding HR 4655, stresses U.N. cooperation and funding for Iraqi democratic groups.

From Clinton's statement:

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

From the act itself which you can read at http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

In no way shape or form is the act nor the speech condoning military intervention in a unilateral sense or devoid of U.N. agreements. Your question related to the Iraq resolution given by the Clinton administration which was pre-Saddam, and twisted to the post-Saddam situation. You skipped the HOW of the post-Saddam situation entirely. Skipping a most important part of the Bush's administration actions regarding HOW the Saddam regime was toppled is the whole gist of what you term "spin." Overlooking the foreign policy change is the main mistake you make. You yourself then, would be saying in effect "the ends justify the means" which was not ever an American heretofore policy justification. You cannot skip the unilateral decision, the decision to mislead the American people via 9/11 and Saddam's false involvement, the following WMD fear-propaganda, and the use of military force. Clinton NEVER recommended military force, but he was and the Congress was aware that changes had to be made to protect the Iraqi people, Iraq's neighbors, and encourage democracy. I agree with the financial support and U.N. support of the Iraqi people mentioned and listed in the Clinton era bill. I do not agree with military intervention and given that Bush insisted on WMD to get Congress to give him the power to invade, upon said premise found later to be false, and going against the expectations of members of Congress that Bush would work with the U.N., I say after the fact, the troops should have been withdrawn after Saddam was toppled.

So, Jay, your whole question is reflective of your supportive stance for "the ends justifies the means" and totally ignores the means. Palast's expose exposed the underlying reasons for the MEANS and that was the point. You have missed the point. Yes there were human rights issues involved, but if you naively assert that human rights and democracy were the ONLY considerations regarding toppling Hussein, you ignore the whole world economic scene and the importance of oil in present-based economic structures. You also ignore the facts presented in Palast's expose.

BC-"The BIG NEWS here was the planning for oil takeover BEFORE the 9/11 and after by two factions, the neocons and the big oil."

Status- spinning out of control.
Plans for regime change were initiated in 1998 under the Clinton administration, commencing after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act. What Bush did was merely to continue to execute the law our congress sent up to the White House years before. Besides, no oil was ever really "taken over", except during the time of the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Iraqi Ministry of oil regained full control even before the government regained soveriegnty last summer.

The plans for regime change pre-2000 never involved military intervention. The motivations for regime change are better understood today and I would not negate even the underlying reason in the Clinton administration having been a not-overtly-stated but realized importance of Iraq's resources, the stability of our currency related to Saddam's threatening to sell oil in Euros, and the possible Middle Eastern power position regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran. Palast revealed the obvious interest in the oil of Iraq. I do not naively assert that Clinton was unaware of oil resources , either.

Boomer Chick

03-29-2005, 11:37 AM

BC-"It was to show that the neoconservatives AND big oil have ties and were in conflict, planned the invasion long before 9/11, lied in regard to WMD, and because the neocons' plan for privatization was not acceptable to big oil companies, nationalized Iraqi oil was preserved."

Status- laundry list.
People have "ties", yet disagree? Wouldn't that seem to show a lesser conspiracy rather than a greater one? Frankly, I'm happy they are free to disagree, it tends to avoid 'groupthink', one of the major faults among large organizations which leads to shortsightedness. Planned the invasion before 9/11? That was debunked long ago. Of course Bill Clinton began the plans back in 1998! "Lied regarding WMD"?, Palast doesn't mention WMD's does he? The neocon's plan wasn't even viable considering a functional Iraqi government was formed too quickly to even consider accomplishing such a thing as privatization. That decision was left up to the Iraqis.

The planning of the invasion of Iraq before 9/11 was never debunked. Where do you get that? I'm sorry, Clarke's book, O'Neil's book, Palast's recent expose, and many others have reported on the meetings and the talks regarding the invasion of Iraq pre-9/11. It hasn't been debunked and saying that it has been does not make it so. Bill Clinton only passed a bill stating his concern and support for Iraqis who were dissatisfied and fearful of Saddam's regime, listing Hussein's various international and internal actions, attempts on GHW's life, and other acts, but Clinton did not advocate withdrawing from the U.N., nor did he advocate military intervention. Because I mentioned Bush's lying about WMD, was the logical realization for citizens who read Palast's report, Clarke's, or even O'Neil's that oil was indeed a consideration and misleading the American people through propaganda (Saddam linked to 9/11, Saddam and WMD) to receive public support, was not appropriate and not ethical. The administration denied any pre-planning of any kind and tried to connect Saddam with 9/11. Don't you see the "ends justifying the means" reasoning here? Palast showed that the neocon plans were not acceptable to the big oil interests and that big oil factions within the administration trumped the neocons' plans. You can have an opinion on this contention as somehow a check and balance or an example of the neocon's accepting criticism, but the issue was one of power. The power rests in economic and profit-motive issues, not humanitarian or democratic interests. THAT WAS THE POINT!!!! You can deny it all you want, but the facts are out there. The Iraqi people were indeed considered, but are they anymore humanely important than the North Korean people? Why haven't we invaded that country to save the people? Why haven't we intervened in Darfur? Ruwanda? and other countries whose regimes are cruel and unusual?

BC- "It's not the end result that is the BIG NEWS on this at all. It's the realization of what really fuels our national foreign policy -- resource usurpation and warlike efforts to create this resource stability. This is immoral and wrong by both the big oil and the neocons! It is wrong covertly and it's wrong overtly!"

Status- Much ado about nothing.
Of course, Palast never began to prove the war was fueled by "resource usurpation". Saddam sold his oil on the open market through the Iraqi Oil Ministry just like the Iraqi people do now!
No such resource usurpation has taken place.

"Much ado about nothing [?] " It is nothing that our young soldiers have lost their lives? It is nothing that Iraqis were tortured and are being tortured today? It is nothing that Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed and many innocent Iraqis killed? It was nothing that our administration lied to us? It was nothing to realize the neocons wanted to destable OPEC in their deranged philosophy to gain the upper hand in the oil pricing? It was nothing to you to realize that oil was one of the basic considerations by our government's invading Iraq to begin with? This is the STORY and news and your simple disagreement means nothing! Facts speak for themselves! Palast proved that discussions with quotes, video, and real people in the corporate and Iraqi liberation were involved. Do you just sit there and deny the facts? Amazing!

Boomer Chick

03-29-2005, 12:19 PM

If the whole war was about oil, it was indeed a complete failure, wasn't it, BC?

No, it wasn't a complete failure regarding oil and money. The big oil got their way, keeping prices up through OPEC uninvolvement and that kept profits high for the oil moguls and thus the price of oil is going up as well as oil CEO profits. Halliburton, Brown and Root, TITAN, CACI, and other American corporations have benefitted as well from the war and its funding from our taxpayer base. This has been reported and proven over and over again. If it had been up to the neocons, the situation would have involved privatizing and selling Iraq's oil. Would this plan have been considerate to the Iraqi people? Are our corporations rebuilding and forming the oil systems and pipelines good for the Iraqi people? Luckily, due to the greed of our American oil companies, which I find greedy and unworthy, the Iraqi people have been able to keep their oil nationalized. The Iraqi insurgents (domestic and international) who are well aware of the political and oil overcontrol of the American occupiers have continued to bomb the oil pipelines and various other oil operations and generally continuing their bombing and insurgency. If we had pulled out after toppling Saddam, which would have been my preference after realizing, of course, that military intervention was wrong and unethical from the start, perhaps the Iraqi people would have realized less war, less killing, less death, and more rebuilding contracts for their own companies and individuals. Iraqis are intelligent people with engineering skills as high as any American, but the American corporations took the no bid contracts and ran with the money! The insurgents killed many American civilians employed by American companies. Now our military men and women are continuing to be sacrificed while our corporate CEOs in various rebuilding efforts and oil operations are reaping windfall profits over the Iraq occupation and some of them facing litigation as to charges of theft, fraud, and embezzling.

The ends do not justify the means and the ends were not planned efficiently and not realized as to the level of insurgency within the Iraqi people, the various political and religious sects, and the external and internal terrorism factor. In fact, terrorism in general was stimulated beyond what it was before the occupation.

Yes, it was a success for the American oil biz. How could you not realize this? The occupation also helped stabilize the dollar, but this, too, is fleeting and it was only put off. Our huge deficits, trade and national, are causing other countries to invest in other currencies and had Bush not flamed into Iraq the way he did, we might, as a nation, be better off economically than we are now. And through peaceful ways, even a Saddam look-alike as was considered by the necons, the stability of the Iraqi nation, its infrastructure, and many lives of its people and ours would have been preserved. There were other choices and other ways to help the Iraqi people.

All that effort by Bush to invade Iraq, only to quickly hand over sovereignty and get a national election pushed through despite worldwide advice to wait, that elections could NEVER work????

All this war just to hand over all the oil as quickly as possible?
Is this the basis of your whole belief system?
Can you really spin these facts into a conspiracy tale about how the war was all about oil?????
Doesn't the whole idea seem preposterous, that an invasion was held just to give away the oil??

Not considering that resources that literally fuel a society, our nation, and determine our economic sustainibility as important is just plain naive. Ask any politician what "our national interests" consist of, and you will find them agreeing, Democrat or Republican, that oil as the foundation of our society is indeed a core of our national interest. I, personally, would have financed from Carter on, the alternative energy industry in our nation so that occupations in the Middle East would have never been considered. If humanitarian puposes were the main interest, we would have gone into Darfur, North Korea, and other harsh regimes unfair and inhumane to their populations. Your argument for anything other than oil as more important falls flat. The election in Iraq was a good thing. But until our elections are verifiably democratic and a voice of the people, we have no right to assume that all of Iraqis elections were any more democratic than ours. It was good for them to have faith and be proud of their ability to vote, those who could and would, but many intelligent Iraqis refused to vote because they knew that the U.S. was behind it and controlling it. How naive can you be? Yes, democracy itself is a stabilizing factor in societies, but again, this was not the original consideration of the neocons and contrasted greatly with Clinton as was evidenced in their plan to subtitute Saddam with a look-alike and maintain the stable Baathist regime. Is this furthering democracy?

What? You bomb people and torture them to help them? You shoot them? You maim and kill their children. And then you offer them the lollipop of a rigged election?

Or isn't it all just a big failure of your whole idea, all of it down the drain in the end, as you can't even begin to argue against the fact that the Iraqis now truly, for the first time ever, really own their own oil, and not some two-bit dictator?

See how easily your whole Bush-is-stealing-Iraq's-oil worldview falls apart? History has been made before your very eyes, and you haven't even begun to deal with the past!

Your thinking avoids facts, avoids history, and fails to recognize the importance of oil to our very way of life. Our building military bases in Iraq is another fact you fail to recognize. Why would that be? Could power and influence with other oil rich nations have anything to do with that? Don't be naive, please. Many coups, many covert para-military actions, and many resource considerations have been perpetrated in the name of American corporate interests. In the case of Iraq, if we truly cared about the Iraqi people and their sovereignty as a nation, wouldn't we have left after toppling Saddam? Why are we still there? Training? Training can be done by other countries within and without Iraq. Do you actually think this present administration plans on leaving Iraq to the Iraqis without our military presence in the form of bases and advisors well inside the Iraqi political regime, in whatever form that regime takes? If our soldiers come home, and those prisons and military bases close down, then you can then say we were there for unselfish, non power, and non-profit considerations. The economic and political sovereignty of the Iraqi nation is my primary concern. I don't want America there permamently. There was a better way to topple Saddam. The Bush administration, the neocons, were not ethical with U.S. citizens, were not ethical with Iraqis (torture, prisons, bombing, nuclear-radiation-laced bombs, killing innocents, disrespecting the Iraqi museums and history and allowing looting while protecting the oil ministry) and created more Iraqi terrorists and international enemies than had they worked with other nations in non-warlike interventions.

And when the Bush administration and people like you justify the means to this end that you find so satisfactory, you support this administration's continuing line of foreign policy with Iran and other neighboring countries. And to what consequences domestically in our country and internationally will that create? Already our dollar has slid in its value, other countries dislike our nation, our social services are being sacrificed to the defense system, our vets are suffering, the draft may be reinstituted in the neocon's thirst for world domination, power, and warlike domination, our CEOs reap huge salaries while our people have lost jobs, and how is this race for power and resources going to benefit the world or our nation? We are going down because of it and our poor, our middleclass, will suffer the most and our children will inherit a mess.

And I do hope the Iraqis will be soverign and righteously so. They deserve it. But they didn't deserve the way Bush bombed, bloodied and humiliated their people! If the troops leave and the bases are dismantled and only advisors and money flowing into their businesses and their contractors will we be able to say we had no ulterior motives regarding the resources and geographical power position of its country.

This is why the need for alternative energy research and development in our country and around the world is so necessary. This is the bottom line. Those who realize the importance of oil, are not totally wrong, they're just going about securing the resources in the wrong way and refusing to think futuristically. Had they promoted alternative energies back in the seventies when Carter realized the importance of it, we wouldn't be in the Middle East today insisting on democracy through a heavy handed and bloody foreign policy. It's fear of lack, and love of profit and short term gains, and stubborness that has failed our nation from leading in new technologies for the world. It will be our demise. The means HAS NOT justified the ends. The means must be ethical and truly humanitarian for the ends to be justified.

http://www.alternet.org/story/21615/

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/28/1434222

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050328/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Is this good for Iraqis? :
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA501A.html

jayreynolds

03-30-2005, 06:05 AM

The Iraqi insurgents (domestic and international) who are well aware of the political and oil overcontrol of the American occupiers have continued to bomb the oil pipelines and various other oil operations and generally continuing their bombing and insurgency. If we had pulled out after toppling Saddam, which would have been my preference after realizing, of course, that military intervention was wrong and unethical from the start, perhaps the Iraqi people would have realized less war, less killing, less death, and more rebuilding contracts for their own companies and individuals.

No, Saddam was in a hole waiting to come out. His sons were hiding out, too. The baathists curently make up the command/control/funding of the terrorists who are killing their own people at about the same rate they did under what you call the "stable baathist regime".
You would have us pull out and allow them to waltz back in?
Shame on you!

If humanitarian puposes were the main interest, we would have gone into Darfur, North Korea, and other harsh regimes unfair and inhumane to their populations.
Those things could also take place. This is how it is done. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm
Why don't your people march on congress and make them do it?

But until our elections are verifiably democratic and a voice of the people, we have no right to assume that all of Iraqis elections were any more democratic than ours. It was good for them to have faith and be proud of their ability to vote, those who could and would, but many intelligent Iraqis refused to vote because they knew that the U.S. was behind it and controlling it. How naive can you be?
In case you didn't hear, the Iraqis are quite happy with their election process.
Perhaps you missed this one, too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19510-2004Nov2.html

In the case of Iraq, if we truly cared about the Iraqi people and their sovereignty as a nation, wouldn't we have left after toppling Saddam? Why are we still there? Training? Training can be done by other countries within and without Iraq. Do you actually think this present administration plans on leaving Iraq to the Iraqis without our military presence in the form of bases and advisors well inside the Iraqi political regime, in whatever form that regime takes? If our soldiers come home, and those prisons and military bases close down, then you can then say we were there for unselfish, non power, and non-profit considerations.
We are finally leaving Germany, but it took over fifty years. I expect Iraq will take a generation.
Right now they want us to stay. Bush said we would go when they asked us, and you can't ask for more!

There was a better way to topple Saddam..
Well, they tried that for a decade. It didn't work. What was your plan back then?

But they didn't deserve the way Bush bombed, bloodied and humiliated their people! If the troops leave and the bases are dismantled and only advisors and money flowing into their businesses and their contractors will we be able to say we had no ulterior motives regarding the resources and geographical power position of its country.
The only way to win in war is to defeat the enemy. In war people get bloodied and bombed.
Yes, defeat was a humiliation for their soldiers, who were not properly prepared or have areal will to fight for the most part.

As I said above, Bush promised to bring our troops home when he was asked to do so. The Iraqi government has asked us to stay. The resources of Iraq are fully in their own control.
End of story.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/28/1434222

Oh, my, a guy deserts the military he signed on to because they kept Iraqi prisoners awake!
Heaven forbid they lose some beauty sleep! The horror!
And now he complains because as a convicted deserter he can't get citizenship.
Send him back home to Nicaragua.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050328/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
"Iraq's outgoing interior minister predicted Monday that his country's emerging police and army may be capable of securing the nation in 18 months, saying his officers are beginning to take over from coalition forces."

Good News!

Is this good for Iraqis? :
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA501A.html

One final question that deserves an honest answer. Given that the Iraqi government now has control of their oil resources, what would you say if they decided to privatize them? To make it easy, here is a multiple choice form, so you can just answer using a number.

1-Iraqi privatization is a victory for "Big Oil"
2-Iraqi privatization is a defeat for "Big Oil"
3-Iraqi privatization is a defeat for Neocons
4-Iraqi privatization is a victory for Neocons
5-Iraqi privatization is a victory for Iraqis
6-Iraqi privatization is a defeat for Iraqis
7-it is up to the Iraqi people to do whatever they damn well please with their oil

Boomer Chick

03-30-2005, 08:52 AM

All Things Considered : NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1756130

Forests in a remote part of the Amazon are suddenly growing like teenagers in a growth spurt. This shouldn't be happening in old, mature forests. Scientists think it might be caused by the extra carbon dioxide humans are putting in the air. As a result, some species are getting pushed out and others are taking over -- evidence that no place on Earth is too remote to be changed by human activity. NPR's Christopher Joyce reports.

***
More on NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089&sourceCode=gaw

May 12, 2004 · There's a sharp difference of opinion among scientists about global warming and the risks it may pose. A few scientists say scenarios of rapid climate change are unwarranted. But others are worried that rising levels of carbon dioxide could trigger a sharp and painful change in the Earth's climate. Scientists are influenced by the way they interpret data, but also by their broader world views. In a three-part series for Morning Edition, NPR's Richard Harris spoke to three prominent scientists about their views on global warming.

Part 1: Richard Alley, Penn State University Glaciologist

Richard Alley discovered something 10 years ago that made him worry the Earth's climate could suddenly shift, and it changed his life. It was a two-mile long ice core, pulled up from the center of Greenland. It contained bubbles of air that reveal what the Earth's atmosphere was like over a period of 100,000 years. The ice core showed that at one point, in as little as 10 years, the global climate had drastically changed. Soon after that discovery, climate change became a personal crusade for Alley.

Part 2: John Christy, University of Alabama Climatologist

Last fall, the Senate debated a bill that would have created regulations to combat global warming. Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] led the opposition, and went so far as to call global warming a hoax. He based that statement, in part, on the work of John Christy, a professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Christy is a respected climatologist, but he's also a maverick who argues that global warming isn't a problem worth worrying about. His major contribution has been to analyze millions of measurements from weather satellites, looking for a global temperature trend. He's found almost no sign of global warming in the satellite data, and is confident that forecasts of warming up to 10 degrees in the next century are wrong.

Part 3: Wallace Broecker, Columbia University Oceanographer

When Wallace Broecker started his career in science more than 50 years ago, no one was worried that humans could change the climate. Broecker, now an oceanographer with Columbia University, has helped to reverse that. And he's using his considerable stature to advocate a far-out scheme to slow global warming: giant machines would absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and the concentrated gas could be either pumped deep underground or turned into carbon-rich rocks. This certainly wouldn't be cheap, but he says it would be easier than social engineering.

***
Big Auto Fights California's Landmark Global Warming Law
Carmakers work the courts instead of putting technology to work.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fauto.asp

Activism on site.

***
Did You Know?

(from site link above)

America's cars and trucks pump 1.4 billion tons of heat-trapping CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

Eighty-one percent of California voters -- including 77 percent of SUV owners -- support the state's new global warming emissions standards.

New emissions standards will save California drivers nearly $921 million annually by 2012.

States including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and Washington are considering adopting California's standards.

***

;)

Boomer Chick

03-30-2005, 08:54 AM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2005
Press contact: Jon Coifman, 212-727-4535 or 917-575-1885 (cell)
If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at nrdcinfo@nrdc.org or see our contact page.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/050328.asp

NORTHEAST STATES LEAD REGIONAL GLOBAL WARMING INITIATIVE

A healthy economy, healthy people and a healthy environment go together. And today nine northeast states are the cutting edge with a groundbreaking new initiative to ensure a healthy future for us all.

The plan offers a new, market-based strategy that will modernize the electric power system using clean, efficient technology to reduce the heat-trapping pollution responsible for global warming. Their approach will reward innovative business performance, create new jobs, and help solve one of our most challenging economic and environmental challenges.

Participating states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. Maryland, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and five Canadian provinces are close observers in the process.

Known among insiders as the "Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative," the plan will establish limits on carbon dioxide emissions and create a trading system allowing companies that beat the standards to sell their extra credits to other firms, opening up a win-win opportunity and lowering overall compliance costs.

The initiative will help consumers and businesses operate more efficiently and cost effectively, stimulate regional economic development and drive investment in new, clean energy technologies. It will also help companies in the region earn a competitive advantage as federal global warming pollution limits come closer to reality.

Each participating state will have its own emissions limit, and will regulate only the power plants located within its boundaries. The coalition will likely first agree on an overall regional pollution limit, and then assign a portion of that amount to each state. Interstate trading will occur when a state agrees to recognize allowances issued by other states.

The program would allow states outside of the Northeast to participate as well, and could be extended to cover not just power plants but all stationary global warming pollution sources, and additional greenhouse gases such as methane and sulfur dioxide.

The states involved in the initiative expect to jointly develop a "model rule" by June 2005, which could then be implemented by each state. So far, their work has focused on:

identifying modeling tools to determine the potential impacts of an emissions cap on electricity prices and the economy generally;

launching a broad stakeholder working group;

collecting data on emissions;

launching a website (www.rggi.org);

and identifying and discussing key policy issues.

NRDC is working with participating states to ensure the effectiveness of the rule, which will serve as an important model for future federal programs and will lay the groundwork for a federal initiative.

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1 million members and online activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

***

;)